Facebook Accused of 'Deliberately Vague' Announcement About Face Recognition

Facebook is "bringing" facial recognition to all users, the company announced Tuesday. But the EFF's surveillance litigation director and a senior staff attorney warn that despite media reports, Facebook's announcement "definitely does not say that face recognition is now opt-in for all users." Throughout Facebook's deliberately vague announcement, it takes great pains to note that the change applies only to new Facebook users and people who currently have the "tag suggestions" setting. However, Facebook migrated many, if not most, existing users from "tag suggestions" to "face recognition" in December 2017... That means this safeguard does not apply to the billions of current Facebook users who have already been moved...

Facebook should not subject any of its users to face surveillance, absent their informed opt-in consent. And Facebook should clear up the uncertainties in in its announcement before it gets any more credit than it's due for this change.
Facebook's announcement didn't even include links to the "Settings" menu where users can opt out of Facebook's facial recognition, so the EFF's article helpfully provides both mobile and desktop links. According to Facebook's own help pages, the left-side menu should include a "Face Recognition" choice where users can turn off Facebook's face recognition features.

But three different Facebook users I know have also reported that that menu choice just isn't there...

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Are you logged into facebook? Of course not. You would be surprised how much content is unavailable all over the internet if you aren't an authorized user.

Re:

[Train0987]

Great parody!!!

I don't even know why people listen to Facebook

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Everybody knows Facebook will try to exploit personal data any which way they can get legally away with. Everybody know they're willy and borderline dishonest. Everybody knows Zuck is only good at saying sorry after he's caught red-handed shafting his users.

Why listen to anything Facebook has to say then? Just assume the worst from them and avoid giving them anything at all - your personal data, photos of your face, videos or anything at all.

Listen very, very carefully

[raymorris]

When a politician says "I didn't take money from them last month", that means "I took money from them, it wasn't last month".

Look for anything unnessarily specific and that's where you'll find the truth-lie.

"I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman" = "I got blow jobs and fingered *her*. The intercourse was with other women".

That's why he didn't say "I never cheat on my wife". He unnecessarily named a specific act with a specific woman - you know he did other things with her, and with other women.

"I didn't email anything *marked* top secret" = I told my staff to (unlawfully) remove off the marking. Also, I faxed the stuff marked top secret.
She didn't say "I never leak classified info".

Same with Facebook. If they say "we aren't selling facial recognition results -to marketers- *now*", that means they will be next month. Now, they are only selling it to intelligence agencies. That's why they didn't say "we won't sell facial recognition results". If they say specifically which month they won't sell it to specific people, that means they sell it to other people, and will sell more at a different time.

Re:

[burtosis]

Considering how many politicians just outright lie and give no fks, politicians slyly omitting truth and beating around the bushes are old school. Get with the times, the future is projection and gaslighting now with the power of LEDs.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Um, let's see if I got this right...

s/Facebook/politician/g

There, that should fix the world

Even if Facebook had said it...

[QuietLagoon]

Facebook's announcement "definitely does not say that face recognition is now opt-in for all users."

Even if Facebook's announcement had said that face recognition is opt-in, why should anyone believe them? It's not like Facebook has a track record of honesty.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Nobody should assume they are being truthful, but nobody should assume they are lying either. I hate Facebook, but did create an account a couple of years ago at the urging of a friend. I can't speak for anyone ellse, but I just checked and my setting is "no" for Facial Recognition. Anyone who thinks for a minute should realize that anyone claiming "many, if not most" have a particular setting when they aren't able to access the underlying database are being disingenuous. They have no idea. Facebook is bad.

Re:

[QuietLagoon]

... Nobody should assume they are being truthful, but nobody should assume they are lying either. ...

I'm not assuming Facebook is lying. I am just looking at Facebook's track record.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Meanwhile I am looking at the facts. If we want to move to conjecture I would point out that a few years back government officials were not talking about prison time for Schmuckerberg. He might be stupid enough to ignore them, but I don't think he is. What we do know is that this guy doesn't know how many FB Users have had their settings for Facial Recognition turned on without their knowledge.

Re:

[QuietLagoon]

...Meanwhile I am looking at the facts....

As am I. Facebook's track record is factual and well-documented.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

OK. Let me see if I can put it to you in words a moron can understand. You are cherry picking facts from the past and then evaluating those facts as if it is still the past to offer up pure conjecture. I am avoiding conjecture completely, looking only at the facts that allow us to make other factual statements. You are acting as if your analysis of the past makes your assumption about the present poignant. I'm pointing out that, while I only suspected you weren't too bright before, we now have conclusive ev

Re:

[QuietLagoon]

...You are cherry picking facts from the past and then evaluating those facts as if it is still the past to offer up pure conjecture....

Not really. I am using Facebook's past behavior regarding privacy and security. As you say, I am looking at the past factual.track record.

... I'm pointing out that, while I only suspected you weren't too bright before,...

'Tis a shame that you find your own argument so weak, that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

My bad. I failed. In my defence I really did think I might be able to explain it in terms a moron could understand.

Re:

[sjames]

Facebook lying may not be a certainty, but it's the smarter way to bet.

Facebook can go to hell

[Quakeulf]

You have death penalty in the US, right? If anyone here defends Facebook in any way, please let me know why. I really want to know why anyone would defend them at this point.

Re:

[burtosis]

So Facebook can go to themselves?

Re:

[Quakeulf]

It would be good if they just stayed there.

Re:

[Quakeulf]

Has it ever mattered who you vote for between Democrats or Republicans in the past 20 years? It seems to me, as an outsider, that whoever you vote for, you get the exact same policies of waging war abroad and supporting Israel with billions of dollars.

Too, too..

[slick7]

Too many crimes, too many chances, too many excuses. When is enough too much?

Re:

[burtosis]

A crime a year is something to fear; a crime a day keeps congress at bay.

Doesn't affect me

[kerashi]

Doesn't affect me as I don't have any pictures of myself on Facebook. Maybe it should concern my cat, but I heard that facial recognition for Siamese cats is notoriously ineffective.

Opting out is logistically impossible

[Solandri]

Facebook's announcement didn't even include links to the "Settings" menu where users can opt out of Facebook's facial recognition

How is opting out even supposed to work? Facebook uses facial recognition to tag people in photos that other people upload. If I were to opt out of their facial recognition, the only way for them to exclude me would be to use facial recognition to identify me in those photos, and not tag me. In other words, they have to use facial recognition on me to know they're not supposed to use facial recognition on me. The best you can do with an opt-out policy is to keep a shadow profile of my face in the database, but not link it to my name and identity. I imagine that for most people wishing to opt out, it's the keeping a shadow profile of me part which bothers them. The linking to my name and identity is additional aggravation, and can easily be done at a later date if they wish to turn evil(er) and ignore my opt out request.

This can only work if it's opt-in. They can then limit their facial recognition database to only people who have opted in, resulting in their algorithm only recognizing people who have opted in. It'll generate a whole bunch of false positives, as the algorithm will fall back to closest matches (of people who have opted in). But that's their problem, not mine.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Your settings control whether facebook will process photos you upload for faces, or at least admit it. They also control whether facebook will tag you publicly in photos other people upload when your face is recognized. In that case it doesn't stop your face being recognized by facebook, but they don't tell the general public that they have done so.