Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Privacy The Courts United States

Facebook Loses Facial Recognition Technology Appeal, Must Face Class Action (euronews.com) 54

Posted by msmash from the face-the-music dept.
In a landmark decision, the Ninth Circuit today ruled that Facebook must face a class action suit claiming that its facial recognition practices violated an Illinois biometric privacy law. From a report: A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected Facebook's effort to undo a class action lawsuit claiming that it illegally collected and stored biometric data for millions of users without their consent. The 3-0 decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco exposes Facebook to billions of dollars in potential damages to the Illinois users who brought the case. It came as the social media company faces broad criticism from lawmakers and regulators over its privacy practices. Last month, Facebook agreed to pay a record $5 billion fine to settle a Federal Trade Commission data privacy probe. "This biometric data is so sensitive that if it is compromised, there is simply no recourse," Shawn Williams, a lawyer for plaintiffs in the class action, said in an interview. "It's not like a Social security card or credit card number where you can change the number. You can't change your face."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Loses Facial Recognition Technology Appeal, Must Face Class Action More

Facebook Loses Facial Recognition Technology Appeal, Must Face Class Action

Comments Filter:

  • You can't change your face... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Come on! Haven't you seen Face Off??? ;)

  • Class Action settlement (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday August 08, 2019 @03:51PM (#59064436)

    Last month, Facebook agreed to pay a record $5 billion fine to settle a Federal Trade Commission data privacy probe. "This biometric data is so sensitive that if it is compromised, there is simply no recourse," Shawn Williams, a lawyer for plaintiffs in the class action, said in an interview. "It's not like a Social security card or credit card number where you can change the number. You can't change your face."

    They'll settle this. The lawyers will get $500 million, and the claimants of the class action will get $100 off vouchers for a local plastic surgeon.

    • If it works as a deterrent for further privacy breaches by Facebook or other companies, that's a good thing. Who gets the money is secondary.

      • It isn't a deterrent. $500 million is nothing to Facebook.

      • All class action lawsuits are like that.

        I did tobacco and the Toshiba FDC (floppy disk controller) class actions and the settlements were in the billions.

        In the case of Toshiba, few actual individuals could jump the bar set for proof of damages, so the court established a foundation to spread the settlement out over schools and stuff.

        That foundation is managed by the same lawyers who made hundreds of millions off the case.

        For my IT part in Toshiba, I get a bonus equal to my annual salary.

    • They'll settle this. The lawyers will get $500 million, and the claimants of the class action will get $100 off vouchers for a local plastic surgeon.

      $10 off. Or maybe $1.

      • They'll settle this. The lawyers will get $500 million, and the claimants of the class action will get $100 off vouchers for a local plastic surgeon.

        $10 off. Or maybe $1.

        Or an attaboy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      "The lawyers will get $500 million, and the claimants of the class action will get $100 off vouchers for a local plastic surgeon."

      Close, but having been a claimant several of these suits, I'd suggest you're off by a factor of ten.

  • Precedence for government use (Score:4, Interesting)

    by grumpy_old_grandpa ( 2634187 ) on Thursday August 08, 2019 @03:51PM (#59064442)

    I know this case involved collection of data without consent. However, the "you can't change your face" argument can be applied to any biometric use, including government use.

    Could it be that we're finally moving in the right direction here?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      What's the right direction? I don't want to live in a panopticon where robots follow my every move 24/7, but I also want to be allowed to own a camera and a personal computer and use them as I please. Is it reasonable to want both of those things, or does one of them have to go?

      • What's the right direction? I don't want to live in a panopticon where robots follow my every move 24/7, but I also want to be allowed to own a camera and a personal computer and use them as I please. Is it reasonable to want both of those things, or does one of them have to go?

        You can use them as you please until you violate someone's rights - same as you can't swing your fist into someone else's face. So yes, you do have to let go of the idea of using them as you please.

        Same as you can't use your computer to store or disseminate kiddie porn, and your neighbours aren't allowed to use a telephoto lens to peak through your windows or a drone to take pictures of your daughters in the pool in your backyard.

        • "and your neighbours aren't allowed to use a telephoto lens to peak through your windows or a drone to take pictures of your daughters in the pool in your backyard"

          Pretty sure both of those things are legal.

  • It's not like a Social security card number .... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Thursday August 08, 2019 @03:54PM (#59064458)

    "It's not like a Social security card or credit card number where you can change the number. You can't change your face."

    It would probably be easier to get facial plastic surgery than change your SSN.

  • Did Illinois outlaw photography? (Score:3)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Thursday August 08, 2019 @04:06PM (#59064516) Homepage Journal

    If you take "don't store biometric data" literally enough then it would seem to outlaw photography of humans. Or does it just outlaw remembering who is the subject of a photograph?

    If we ass/u/me Illinois did not intend to outlaw photography of humans or some other ridiculous overreach, then how could this be resolved in a way where what Facebook did would still be illegal, but if you, a mere human, take a photo of another human and remember whom you photographed, that remains permitted?

    • Start following me in public taking my pictures and I'll have you arrested for stalking. Start taking pictures of young children in school yards and you'll be on the sexual offenders list. Don't have permission of the person and there's enough detail to identify them, then don't .

      At one point someone was following me and taking pictures as I went about my daily life. Only found out when they showed the pictures to someone else. I had ratted them out to child services and they wanted to make sure that the t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        Start following me in public taking my pictures and I'll have you arrested for stalking.

        Ok. Is that what this biometrics storage prohibition is about? If it is, I understand. You have to admit, the summary and the euronews article doesn't mention anything like that.

        • This is what it's actually about:

          You're familiar with CODIS [fbi.gov].

          When a new DNA sample goes into the database, it may hit on a sample already in there. Otherwise, the DNA sample just sits there waiting for a hit.

          A lot of samples are submitted voluntarily so persons of interest can be excluded as suspects.

          Keeping that thought, imagine a similar algo that uses face recognition. Surveillance photos can be entered into a facial database and the search is on.

          Recall that Amazon Ring is working with LEO to access neigh

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      > Did Illinois outlaw photography?

      Nope.

      "Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written
      signatures, photographs, [...]"

      http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio... [ilga.gov]

    • It is laughable that you use the word "literally" when you could have read the literal text of the law but obviously didn't.

      For those who thought Sloppy was arguing in good faith, here is the the actual law in question: http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio... [ilga.gov]

      Specifically: "Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as height, weig

  • “It’s not like a Social security card or credit card number where you can change the number. You can’t change your face.”

    1. Having some biometric data about your face out there is NOT the same as having your "face out there"

    2. Having pictures of your face uploaded by you or your friends out there --- that information is already out there, and biometrics can be derived from that information, so in a sense the "information" is already out there anyways; and Facebook's internal bio

  • Any resident of Illinois regardless of where the data is captured or stored?
    A person in Illinois when the data is captured?
    Storage of the data in Illinois?
    Transmission of the data but only if Illinois resident?
    etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close