this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
63 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

789 readers
4 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
Yayannick@lemmy.ml
ranok@sopuli.xyz
63
Someone Put Facial Recognition Tech onto Meta's Smart Glasses to Instantly Dox Strangers (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by CoderSupreme@programming.dev to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As much as i hate meta and the rest, this is really a personal failure. Everyone knew that this would happen and everyone kept uploading all their unsecured biometric info to the public internet. This would be feasable, no matter how cool and open social media platforms are.

Its not solveable by any other means than not publishing the data in the first place. Getting existing biometric scramblers for image and audio data into the hands of the public is the big first step that would be necessary to solve this.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

No, you can address this through laws and legislation. You literally just ban people from amassing personal information on other people like Europe is doing.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Banning things doesnt stop people from doing those things. You dont stop locking your bike/car just because theft is illegal. Other countries governments could still use it, criminals could use it, your own countries agencies could use it because they might be exempt from certain laws.

Yes it should be outlawed but thqts only half the solution.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

True, but corporations are the most clear and immediate threat and making it sufficiently (!) expensive for them does discourage bad behaviour.

[–] ReversalHatchery 3 points 1 month ago

it does not discourage anything. illegally designed cookie notices? the dozen tracking providers on all the websites? digital public passport passes that track your habits, but never told you about it, not even at purchase?

[–] ReversalHatchery 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the law wont save you. laws will prevent no one from doing this, just like outlawing encryption couldn't prevent decentralized encrypted messengers from being used.

as a European, I don't think EU laws have helped anything in this. if anything they have only helped to make websites a little more honest in what they do. but even their cookie notices and tracking agreement questions are most often illegal, filled with dark patterns prohibited by GDPR. and who the fuck cares?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the law wont save you. laws will prevent no one from doing this, just like outlawing encryption couldn't prevent decentralized encrypted messengers from being used.

An illegal actor could still comb the internet and create a private face recognition db, but they would be taking on risk, paying substantial infratstructure costs, would not be able to make it widely available for fear of being caught, and would have limited options for actually making any real money from it.

It would completely prevent say, your average stalker, or jilted ex, or non techy weirdo from.being able to access it, and it would prevent corporations from spending all their time building business around privacy invasion.

[–] ReversalHatchery 1 points 1 month ago

An illegal actor could still

and that's all legality on the internet can achieve: calling these illegal actors. just like if I would be called an illegal actor if I kept using Matrix and Signal after (and if) chat control has passed.

but they would be taking on risk,

have you seen this article by Proton, showing how much big tech pays in penalties for their illegal acts?

it does not matter.

paying substantial infratstructure costs,

piece of cake for those who already have it. I'm but only talking about traditional big tech, but also other large companies like clearview ai.

would not be able to make it widely available for fear of being caught, and would have limited options for actually making any real money from it.

Except if they are

  • in a non-EU country, because EU has no power outside it
  • having business with police forces and such, because then it can easily get an exception or get hidden or handwaved away

It would completely prevent say, your average stalker, or jilted ex, or non techy weirdo from.being able to access it, and it would prevent corporations from spending all their time building business around privacy invasion.

only if it gets found out, and if the person doing it does nothing to hide itself. I don't think this would be effective.

what I think though that this could be used as another reason to support chat control, and automated surveillance with it, but maybe not even at the chat system, but at the camera software or operating system level

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago

I listened to the 404 Media podcast about this yesterday and the author argues that the subject of the article’s ire is intended to be the researchers themselves. Specifically, the bad ethics of testing this integration on non-consenting individuals (even though it was seemingly done with good intent).

Luckily the researchers realized what the fuck they had just made and pivoted the project to being about how to break the integration (ie: opt out of facial recognition systems and freeze your credit score).