Germany Says Facebook's Facial Recognition Is Illegal

[DamianTV]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/08/03/2352200/Germany-Says-Facebooks-Facial-Recognition-Is-Illegal


"Although we think it's generally a pretty nifty feature, valid concerns over the misuse of Facebook's auto-recognition tagging have lead Germany to ban it entirely. That's right—Facebook in its current state is now illegal. The German government, which possesses perhaps the world's most adamant privacy laws as a result of postwar abuse, considers Facebook's facial recognition a violation of 'the right to anonymity.'"

[DamianTV]

Not blaming them. In fact, I applaud them! It isnt Facebook that they dont like, it is Facebook's Disrespect of Privacy that they feel is at such a level that the site violates their laws.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

So that's why they named it Facebook

[AZKing]

I seem to recall Germany giving Google a hard time for the street view feature.

[DamianTV]

Isnt that what a government is supposed to do? Protect the people from entities like itself?

[Bern]

I don't care if peeps choose to join Facebook and post photos of themselves and let Facebook develop a biometric database of their face. That's their choice. It bothers me tremendously that peeps can post photos of other people and tag them with their names so Facebook can build a database of biometric data on people who do not use Facebook. That's over the line.

[Reason]

Props to Germany

[Fox McCloud]

They should butt out of facebook's business--if people accept the EULA when they sign up and upload their own photos its on their shoulders.

"Privacy" is a misnomer as far as rights go.

[Bern]

Fox - what about the peeps who don't sign up and sign a EULA? How do they prevent Facebook from including them in their biometric database?

[Fox McCloud]

Fox - what about the peeps who don't sign up and sign a EULA? How do they prevent Facebook from including them in their biometric database?

Why would that be an issue? They're not going to be able to know who you are unless you have a facebook profile and your picture set to begin with. If you don't have a profile, they're not going to know what you look like...unless a friend specifically takes your photo and uploads it...in that case, your contention/conflict should be with your friend and not facebook.

There is no such thing as a "right to privacy".

[Humanae Libertas]

But the Germany's tyranny is perfectly legal.

[Bern]

...
There is no such thing as a "right to privacy".

Strongly disagree. (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html)

Biometric databases facilitate 4th Amendment violations IMO.

[DamianTV]

Fox - what about the peeps who don't sign up and sign a EULA? How do they prevent Facebook from including them in their biometric database?

Very good point. Facebook makes every effort to track anyone that even so much as visits a non facebook website that has one of those Facebook widgets embedded somewhere in it. It doesnt exactly link the cookie to photos of them, but do any 3rd Party Cookie Trackers give anyone an opportunity to even so much as read a EULA?

[Fox McCloud]

Strongly disagree. (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html)

Biometric databases facilitate 4th Amendment violations IMO.

Amendments restrict behavior of the government they do not and should not restrict private behavior.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Facebools facial recognition sucks! - I've seen a friends pge where the screw up who is who - pl personally recognizable to me.

This is a total joke!

-t

[Bern]

Fox - you are trying to move the goal posts from your previous statement. Either there is a right to privacy - recognized if not explicitly referenced in our country's founding document(s) - or there isn't.

With regards to your moved goalpost, this is a pretty close analogy:
...
Photographing or videotaping a person without their knowledge or consent may open you up to a lawsuit for invasion of privacy. It's a tort or civil wrong. Generally it means the intentional intrusion into the private life or affairs of another person. If you violate someone's right to privacy and cause injury, that person is entitled to sue you to recover damages.

On top of that, your videotaping or photography may be a criminal offense. It's a good idea to talk to an attorney about the laws in your area that may limit or restrict your ability to videotape or photograph people, places or things.
...

http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/Photography-or-Video-Taping-Consent.html

[Anti Federalist]

Amendments restrict behavior of the government they do not and should not restrict private behavior.

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny.

CIA has been in bed with Facebook since it's inception.

TomTom sold driver's routes and patterns to cops.

The list is endless on stories like this.

Screw them and their 300 page EULAs, a corporation has no more right to infringe on my rights than you do or government does.

[Danke]

I have nothing to hide.

[Anti Federalist]

I have nothing to hide.

Like hell you don't...

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2564.jpg

[Danke]

Like hell you don't...


My extracurricular activities are already well known.


And so are yours:

http://th45.photobucket.com/albums/f70/s_class7/th_sailors.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

My extracurricular activities are already well known.


And so are yours:

http://th45.photobucket.com/albums/f70/s_class7/th_sailors.jpg

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/laughing-calvin--26-hobbes-337864_504_313.gif

[Fox McCloud]

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny.

CIA has been in bed with Facebook since it's inception.

TomTom sold driver's routes and patterns to cops.

The list is endless on stories like this.

Screw them and their 300 page EULAs, a corporation has no more right to infringe on my rights than you do or government does.

If you voluntarily agree to it, is it still tyranny? I say no.

That said, whenever corporations get in bed with the government (or visa versa), the results are never good--to single this out and use it as a point for "right to privacy" or for special government treatment...well, I'd strongly and personally disagree with that.


Like hell you don't...

http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2564.jpg

Come on, AF, it's not nice to post pictures of Cowlesy on the forums! =p

[DamianTV]

If you voluntarily agree to it, is it still tyranny? I say no.

...

What if you don't agree to it? I never signed up for facebook, or agreed to their EULA.

I think what is happening here is the expectations of the people that have signed up for facebook are being purposefully misinterpreted as if I have offered my concent, which I have not, and will not give.

---

Then I saw that picture. And I thought to myself "Sure! I could tap that!"