Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the time-to-'face'-the-music dept.

Facebook must face a class action lawsuit over its use of facial recognition technology, a California judge has ruled.

The lawsuit alleges that Facebook gathered biometric information without users' explicit consent.

It involves the "tag suggestions" technology, which spots users' friends in uploaded photos; the lawsuit says this breaches Illinois state law.

Facebook said the case had no merit and it would fight it vigorously.

On Monday, US District Judge James Donato ruled to certify a class of Facebook users - a key legal hurdle for a class action suit.

The class of people in question is Facebook users "in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7, 2011", according to the court order.

In a successful class action suit, any person in that group could be entitled to compensation.

In his order, Judge Donato wrote: "Facebook seems to believe... statutory damages could amount to billions of dollars."

The decision comes days after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced intensive questioning by US lawmakers over the company's collection and use of user data.

June 2011 was the date on which Facebook rolled out its "tag suggestions" feature.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:29PM (10 children)

    by drussell (2678) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:29PM (#668614) Journal

    Does Facebook even offer a way to "opt-out" of facial recognition so you cannot get auto-tagged at all?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:31PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:31PM (#668615)

      no.

      but i want in on the lawsuit

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 18 2018, @04:20PM (7 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 18 2018, @04:20PM (#668626) Journal

        Me too. Never had FaceTwit. No doubt have been tagged in photos uploaded by others. I have no option to get Facebook to stop tagging me and following me around the web. (Well: uMatrix)

        But alas, I'm in the wrong state.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:11PM (3 children)

          by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:11PM (#668642)

          Yeah, it seems a bit odd that it only includes Facebook users in Illinois.

          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:28PM (2 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:28PM (#668651) Journal

            Only because Illinois passed a law which is what the lawsuit is based on.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:55PM (1 child)

              by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:55PM (#668661) Journal

              That explains the "only in Illinois" part, but not the "only Facebook users" part. It should have been "anyone in Illinois whose facial data was stored and analyzed by Facebook".

              --
              The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:07PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:07PM (#668666) Journal

                This may be due to specifics of the law.

                Hypothesis: the law doesn't anticipate that Evil Corp would also track and abuse the personal info of NON-USERS of its platform.

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:24PM

          by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @05:24PM (#668648)

          Found it on El Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/18/facebook_faces_foe_formation_in_facial_fingering_fight/ [theregister.co.uk]

          Seems Illinois passed a Biometric Information Privacy Act in 2008. Now the big question is, why haven't other states or the U.S. congress also passed such a law? In the Register article there is mention of similar suits against Google.

          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:48PM (1 child)

          by frojack (1554) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:48PM (#668678) Journal

          Me too. Never had FaceTwit. No doubt have been tagged in photos uploaded by others.

          Exactly. Some "Friend" will upload your picture and put your name to it, and then you are IN THE SYSTEM and
          there is no way out.

          The best you can say is that they don't seem to leak these pictures to Google search, but anyone who has you
          in their Facebook Contacts will suddenly see your picture suggested.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 18 2018, @09:06PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 18 2018, @09:06PM (#668732) Journal

            Sort of like with a "friend" sends you an email greeting card through some sketchy web site.

            Gee, thanks!

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:53PM

      by Justin Case (4239) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:53PM (#668620) Journal

      You: I want to opt out.

      FB: OK, who is it that wants to opt out?

      You: (provides some identifying information)

      Seriously cannot see the problem here?

      It must be opt-IN! Default deny.

       
       

      Here's a photo of my left big toe. Please do not hit it with a hammer. Also, here's a photo of my right big toe. Please do not hit it with a hammer. Also, here's a photo of my left pinkie. Please do not hit it with a hammer. Also, here's...

      Oh, and google, here's the same photos. And Apple, have a look at these too. And who else?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:46PM (5 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:46PM (#668619) Journal

    The class of people in question is Facebook users ... any person in that group could be entitled to compensation.

    Because everyone uses FB, right?

    I never had a FB account. I never agreed to their terms of shafting. I never gave them permission to do one damn thing. Yet they and a few others like them [try to] follow me most everywhere I go -- on the web or in meatspace.

    Try following that hottie into the restroom and see how long you can go without consequences. But this is OK because digital???!

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by rigrig on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:58PM (4 children)

      by rigrig (5129) Subscriber Badge <soylentnews@tubul.net> on Wednesday April 18 2018, @03:58PM (#668622) Homepage

      I'm not sure how these things work, but I imagine you could start your own class-action lawsuit for "non-Facebook users for whom Facebook created and stored a face template"?
      Possibly with better chances of winning and/or more damages, as you didn't agree to have anything to do with Facebook in the first place.

      --
      No one remembers the singer.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:25PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @06:25PM (#668670) Journal

        Remember this one folks!

        While we're all sitting around patting each other on the back for seeing FB for what it was and never signing up remember one thing: They have a profile on all of us anyway!

        And they sold that profile, illegally, and without any form of consent from you, to political campaigns and foreign/domestic intelligence operatives.

        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:52AM (2 children)

          by Wootery (2341) on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:52AM (#668940)

          illegally

          Isn't the whole point that it's not illegal? The USA has no data protection law worth mentioning.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by anubi on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:10AM (1 child)

            by anubi (2828) on Thursday April 19 2018, @10:10AM (#668970) Journal

            Except Copyright.

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday April 20 2018, @01:05PM

              by Wootery (2341) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:05PM (#669620)

              Fair point.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @04:22PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @04:22PM (#668627)
    Millions of fb users willingly became Judas' Iscariots.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @02:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @02:49AM (#668821)
      Facebook is like Whore of Babylon from Revelation. They trade in the souls of people.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by LVDOVICVS on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:14PM (7 children)

    by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:14PM (#668689)

    If I see you on the sidewalk I'm going to sue you for gathering biometric information about my ugly face with your brain. How dare you not first ask me whether I want you to recognize me facially. If you store my face template in your wetware I'm gonna get financial recompense! And if you tell your friend you saw me, well that's an outrage, too.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:54PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:54PM (#668707)

      You don't understand the difference between using technology to conduct mass surveillance on the populace and someone seeing you in public? You don't see how that data could be used to abuse people in a myriad of ways that couldn't be done if someone merely spotted you in a public place? Ugh...

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by LVDOVICVS on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:58PM (5 children)

        by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @07:58PM (#668709)

        You never heard of East Germany and the Stasi? Ugh...

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 18 2018, @08:23PM (4 children)

          by Justin Case (4239) on Wednesday April 18 2018, @08:23PM (#668718) Journal

          East Germany and the Stasi tried all sorts of abuses. But they didn't have the tech to scale up to billions, almost effortlessly.

          When the next Stasi takes power, we are all pwned. And, well, you know the only way to get unpwned, right? Nuke and pave. You can't dig your way out of it.

          • (Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Thursday April 19 2018, @12:14AM (3 children)

            by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Thursday April 19 2018, @12:14AM (#668767)

            I would argue that the Stasi didn't just try, they succeeded. The ever truthful Wikipedia says the Stasi "has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies to have ever existed." And they did it before 1990, so without the aid of tech, as you point out.

            Another example would be North Korea. Their State Security Department is apparently quite successful if repression and brutality are a measure of that. And I'm guessing they're probably not running any cutting-edge systems to achieve their goals.

            These non-technological systems scaled to the tens of millions. I don't think it's a substantiated claim that they couldn't scale further.

            To me, this post just sounds like someone trying to shake down Facebook while the opportunity looks good.

            • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 19 2018, @12:37AM (2 children)

              by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday April 19 2018, @12:37AM (#668775) Journal

              OK so now that we agree there were (very effective) bad people before technology, your thesis is what exactly? That it is OK for nerds (or more often their employers) to use technology to mass-attack billions of unsuspecting people -- some of whom (as discussed elsewhere) never even consented or used the "service"?

              (Service: what a stud does to a mare.)

              • (Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Thursday April 19 2018, @02:41AM (1 child)

                by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Thursday April 19 2018, @02:41AM (#668816)

                It's not the technology, it's who's using it and for what.

                If one chooses to appear in public, it is legal to photograph them. It is not illegal to identify them. No permission or consent is required. I'm talking specifically about the U.S.

                I can certainly see how the government could use this technical ability to its advantage. Some guy in China got picked out of a crowd I read. Suing Facebook is not going to make an iota of difference in what the government is doing. And whether the identification is being done by computers or thugs in front of screens is really secondary to the issue of the prevalence of surveillance in society. The larger matter is how much the government should be spying on people by any means.

                • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:10PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19 2018, @08:10PM (#669266)

                  If one chooses to appear in public, it is legal to photograph them. It is not illegal to identify them. No permission or consent is required. I'm talking specifically about the U.S.

                  Except that Facebook builds shadow profiles about people who don't even use their disservice. Others can upload pictures of you without your permission, which can then have your name tagged and have facial recognition algorithms run on it.

                  Wait, I know: Never appear in public. Wow! What a practical solution which is 100% possible to do while living in a so-called civilization. Or, how about we have real privacy laws that stop companies like Facebook from conducting mass surveillance on the populace?

                  Suing Facebook is not going to make an iota of difference in what the government is doing.

                  We should sue Facebook into oblivion and tackle government surveillance. These are not mutually exclusive.

                  The larger matter is how much the government should be spying on people by any means.

                  The government should simply not be allowed to conduct mass surveillance on the populace. Ever. Surveillance should always be highly targeted and approved by a court, as required by the fourth amendment.

(1)