DIY facial recognition for porn sparks concern(vice.com)
vice.com
DIY facial recognition for porn sparks concern
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kxny7/diy-facial-recognition-for-porn-weibo
27 comments
jmpman(1)
>His reasoning for making this program, he wrote, is “to have the right to know on both sides of the marriage.” After public outcry, he later claimed his intention was to allow women, with or without their fiancées, to check if they are on porn sites and to send a copyright takedown request.
This was going to happen one way or the other regardless; I don't understand why it's so important for the author to spin his reasoning for making it.
This was going to happen one way or the other regardless; I don't understand why it's so important for the author to spin his reasoning for making it.
The author of the tweet (and supposed ident system) or the author of the article?
I think if the latter - there was no "spin", just reporting.
But if the former - then I'd say it's because the author knows they are in the wrong, but likely doesn't care until it starts to look bad for them, thus the duplicitous pivot.
I think if the latter - there was no "spin", just reporting.
But if the former - then I'd say it's because the author knows they are in the wrong, but likely doesn't care until it starts to look bad for them, thus the duplicitous pivot.
The author of the system is completely in the right. People deserve to know who they are dealing with interpersonal matters, especially when it deal with matters of public record. Not everyone is completely gungho on feckless hedonism you know?
The case of revenge-porn aside, public things are public, and making things public comes with consequences. If you are relying on the current lack of human ingenuity in connecting that public data together, you're going to be disappointed.
> If you are relying on the current lack of human ingenuity in connecting that public data together, you're going to be disappointed.
I'm not saying that you're wrong here. However, the effect that you're describing leads directly to a dystopian world that few people would actually want to be living in, and the only thing that an individual could do about it is to withdraw from society entirely, including never going out in public.
There has to be some way of preventing that.
I'm not saying that you're wrong here. However, the effect that you're describing leads directly to a dystopian world that few people would actually want to be living in, and the only thing that an individual could do about it is to withdraw from society entirely, including never going out in public.
There has to be some way of preventing that.
Whether you want it to happen or not is inconsequential, it's going to happen.
Only if everyone allows it to.
Of anyone can start scraping images and do facial recognition, then they don't need permission.
That's not necessarily true. Anyone can copy and distribute movies right now, but you need permission to do it. If you don't have that permission, you're taking the risk of being on the wrong end of legal action. Sure, it's not perfect, but it does have a restraining effect and, more importantly, it provides an avenue for recourse.
A similar thing could be done for scraping images and doing face recognition. It only takes the political will.
A similar thing could be done for scraping images and doing face recognition. It only takes the political will.
No, what he is describing should directly lead to people carefully considering what they share online. I remember 15 years ago everybody knew that, now it's "oh, I get internet points for sharing every bar/restaurant/venue I go to?! let's do that!" (this was in reference to foursquare, apparently they are not a thing anymore?)
Not posting your porn online because you're afraid someone will find out surely isn't a dystopian future.
Not posting your porn online because you're afraid someone will find out surely isn't a dystopian future.
Foursquare has been licensing their data to Microsoft for millions at a time: https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/04/foursquare-cuts-15m-deal-w...
What he is describing goes far beyond porn sites, or even the online space generally.
Acceptable behavior won't need to be hidden and attention-seekers will love everything they do being known. If the behavior really is wrong, then don't do it. If it's not wrong but your society's standards for judging people are wrong, then work to change the society, like what gay people did. Privacy for non-bad behavior is a temporary measure to allow people to practice it until everyone decides that it's not bad. But it also entrenches the societal view that it's bad! In case of behavior that really is bad, then lack of privacy is a good thing because it discourages it and protects other people from the consequences. For example, criminal and credit records.
The particular problem the author mentioned was marriage. It's a kind of fraud to fool someone into marrying you by not revealing things that they wouldn't accept about your history no matter how unreasonable their judgement is. You're taking advantage of their ignorance to gain more for yourself at their expense. A potential spouse has every right to dig into any aspect of your past that they want because committing to the wrong partner could ruin their life. It's only a good thing for them to be fully informed.
The particular problem the author mentioned was marriage. It's a kind of fraud to fool someone into marrying you by not revealing things that they wouldn't accept about your history no matter how unreasonable their judgement is. You're taking advantage of their ignorance to gain more for yourself at their expense. A potential spouse has every right to dig into any aspect of your past that they want because committing to the wrong partner could ruin their life. It's only a good thing for them to be fully informed.
> Privacy for non-bad behavior is a temporary measure to allow people to practice it until everyone decides that it's not bad.
One other aspect of privacy is that it's harder for people with power to control other people's (private) behavior. For example, if all location information was public, employees would be much more likely to face repercussions at work for interviewing at other companies. You can make it illegal but it's hard to prove and will certainly still happen, so privacy is more effective. It's the same sort of reasoning behind secret ballots.
One other aspect of privacy is that it's harder for people with power to control other people's (private) behavior. For example, if all location information was public, employees would be much more likely to face repercussions at work for interviewing at other companies. You can make it illegal but it's hard to prove and will certainly still happen, so privacy is more effective. It's the same sort of reasoning behind secret ballots.
> Acceptable behavior won't need to be hidden
There is plenty of acceptable behavior that people, quite reasonably, don't want to be tracked or widely known.
> The particular problem the author mentioned was marriage.
I understand. I was speaking to a larger point, not about this problem in particular.
There is plenty of acceptable behavior that people, quite reasonably, don't want to be tracked or widely known.
> The particular problem the author mentioned was marriage.
I understand. I was speaking to a larger point, not about this problem in particular.
There are useful secrets like business secrets or planning a surprise party. But you have to carefully protect them anyway. What other behaviors are you thinking of that should be protected against easy searching but which are still publicly visible?
> What other behaviors are you thinking of that should be protected against easy searching but which are still publicly visible?
Things like my physical location, what I'm buying at the store, what medications I'm using, and so forth. Honestly, the list is extremely long.
Things like my physical location, what I'm buying at the store, what medications I'm using, and so forth. Honestly, the list is extremely long.
If you're organizing a lawful protest and in the process, traveling from place to place, how do you avoid triggering a disruption of your protest?
Given that a protest by its very nature is a disruptive event, i consider this fair game. Otherwise you're trying to silence dissenting opinion by outmanuvering, and how is it NOT totalitarian to silence dissent?
I think that it's a rather large stretch to call wanting to avoid disruptions in a passive way like that "silencing dissent".
Least I checked society still accept people to choose by their own discretion who they date.