Privacy in the public space

[TooNice]

Lately, I have been wondering about privacy in the public, especially the right of not having one's photo taken.. or the right of taking photos of strangers in public space. This is in light of Google Glass but also the fact that smartphones bought in Japan, Hong Kong and presumably other places can not have the shutter sound disabled (out of the box - obviously there are ways around).

Personally, I don't think having a photo taken is harmful, drawing a line on anything that can be deemed as lewd (e.g. under the skirt and such) or profiteering from it (e.g. selling it or putting on a portfolio and such). I also think there is a certain appeal in photograph where the subject is not posing for it. A natural expression can have it's own charm, and you but the most natural expression are frequently when you are unaware you are framed.

On the other hand, some (perhaps most?) people do not like to have their photos taken without permission. Being concerned with why they are being photographed, and what the photograph is being used for is understandable.

Thoughts?

[Saracen]

I'm among those at the more concerned end of concern over privacy, and would object to my photo being taken in public without my permission UNLESS it is entirely accidental, and if it isn't, then it'll depend on who's taking it, and why.

For a start, there's not much anybody can say about accidentally happening to be in the background when someone takes a photo of something else, in a public place. Then there's CCTV, either on the street, or in 'public places' like stores, provided the CCTV is used for security/public safety purposes.

If a store was using CCTV for facial recognition, for example, then I'd object to that without being informed, and if I was informed I would refuse permission, if necessary by never going to that store again.

As for things like Google Glass, it entirely depends on what happens to images. If they're transitory, and discarded, fair enough. If there's background processing, storing for future analysis by Google, used for marketing and/or Google tracking ME, then I object like hell.

My problem with Glass (etc) is I simply do not trust Google with ANY data about me. I don't want them knowing, storing, analysing or storing ANY personal information on me, for any purpose, now or at any time in the future. And that includes images.

[pp05]

Lately, I have been wondering about privacy in the public, especially the right of not having one's photo taken.. or the right of taking photos of strangers in public space. This is in light of Google Glass but also the fact that smartphones bought in Japan, Hong Kong and presumably other places can not have the shutter sound disabled (out of the box - obviously there are ways around).

Personally, I don't think having a photo taken is harmful, drawing a line on anything that can be deemed as lewd (e.g. under the skirt and such) or profiteering from it (e.g. selling it or putting on a portfolio and such). I also think there is a certain appeal in photograph where the subject is not posing for it. A natural expression can have it's own charm, and you but the most natural expression are frequently when you are unaware you are framed.

On the other hand, some (perhaps most?) people do not like to have their photos taken without permission. Being concerned with why they are being photographed, and what the photograph is being used for is understandable.

Thoughts?

If all these systems are allowing users to tags people in their photos and facial recognition built into products then where is the privacy. I mean you could need to do something urgent and keep it confidential for goo d reason, be caught on someone else's camera by accident as they were taking a picture and your face is recognised by the system and it tags you.

[Saracen]

Quite, pp. Exactly. Well put.

[JackBeePee]

I'm among those at the more concerned end of concern over privacy, and would object to my photo being taken in public without my permission UNLESS it is entirely accidental, and if it isn't, then it'll depend on who's taking it, and why.

For a start, there's not much anybody can say about accidentally happening to be in the background when someone takes a photo of something else, in a public place. Then there's CCTV, either on the street, or in 'public places' like stores, provided the CCTV is used for security/public safety purposes.

If a store was using CCTV for facial recognition, for example, then I'd object to that without being informed, and if I was informed I would refuse permission, if necessary by never going to that store again.

As for things like Google Glass, it entirely depends on what happens to images. If they're transitory, and discarded, fair enough. If there's background processing, storing for future analysis by Google, used for marketing and/or Google tracking ME, then I object like hell.

My problem with Glass (etc) is I simply do not trust Google with ANY data about me. I don't want them knowing, storing, analysing or storing ANY personal information on me, for any purpose, now or at any time in the future. And that includes images.

I agree with you. To be honest, the idea of having Google with access to pictures that people take all over the world (assuming Glass got popular in the future) is really scary - no-one should have access to that data (especially seeing as it's not just data about Glass users - they know what they're getting into - but everyone who happens to be involved in any pictures/videos they take.
Google and all these huge internet corporations trading in data are really becoming an issue. :/

[Lucio]

I think that the technology has progressed far faster than any rational debate on the subject. In the last 10 years, we've seen facial recognition go from the wet dream of the Intelligence communities, to a commercially available tool for anyone to purchase and impliment.

Unfortunately society is moving ever forwards towards the end goal, where every moment of our lives is tracked, sold and re-sold. Unless we see some startling revolutionary thoughts which topple corporations like Google and Facebook, the money is in the data and where there's money, there's a driving force to get as much of that data as possible.

People are unwittingly helping these corporations gather more and more data, whether it's purchasing an Amazon Fire phone which has been "enhanced" with the ability to spy on your surroundings to find things to sell you, or Google Glass which will, whether you want it to or not, transmit it's data back to Google for analysis.

Sadly, I think that this will only get worse, and unless you become a complete recluse, it's unavoidable. That said, I will likely end up on an assault charge the first time I meet someone with Google Glass...

[KeyboardDemon]

Hypothetically, if there were an option to be excluded from automatic face recognition routines in camera systems how would the camera know that you have opted out without first checking your face against it's database??

[wasabi]

It has advantages if you're cynical enough. The police have become lazy camera watchers so you can pretty much get away with whatever you want as long as it is away from a camera. Suspect non-cyber-crimes, or any other activity, will gradually get pushed down the priority list so those who choose to live outside the internet of things will have relatively unmolested lives.

[Saracen]

Hypothetically, if there were an option to be excluded from automatic face recognition routines in camera systems how would the camera know that you have opted out without first checking your face against it's database??

By having in absolutely opt-in only, rather than opt-out?

It would still have to check face-recog parameters against a database, but 'no record found' = dump image, and search parameters. Only if 'record found' AND 'permission = yes' does any processing or recording a logging take place.

Of course, no company likes being told 'opt in only'. Case in point, the ScanSure arguments we had on this forum .... until the law forced all such insurance schemes to be opt-in, not opt-out.

[Lucio]

Either that or a universally recognised "do not track" RFID chip, specifically with a non unique number loaded. Won't protect againsg longer distance shots, but does stop close invasions.

As an aside, was reminded today how facial recognition isn't perfect. I uploaded some picturesnpf miniatures I'd painted and it offered for me to tag the skull on one of them as a friend....

[RobbieRoy]

One of the issues concerns the use of tagged and recognised images for policing purposes - be they legitimate or not, especially when the accuracy and efficiency is considered.

For example, if a system successfully recognises a person's face 999 out of 1,000 times then it will provide a false positive 1 time out of 1,000. That might sound acceptable, but when its a CCTV system that analyses 1,000 faces a minute then that's 60 incorrectly identified every hour. If a face is then incorrectly linked to a 'crime' and that is acted upon by the police (who have a long track record of getting the wrong people) then there's really no privacy at all.

[Galant]

Either that or a universally recognised "do not track" RFID chip, specifically with a non unique number loaded. Won't protect againsg longer distance shots, but does stop close invasions.

As an aside, was reminded today how facial recognition isn't perfect. I uploaded some picturesnpf miniatures I'd painted and it offered for me to tag the skull on one of them as a friend....

Alas! Poor Yorick.

As for RFID, I shudder at the thought. Still, it's hard to think of a solution to this other than tech vs. tech - outside of a ban on data collection altogether, making data collection entirely opt-in - data submission rather then collection, and strict, limited licensing for tech or locations wanting to use things like facial recognition. Essentially this will come down to societies valuing freedom and independence over convenience. Not a winning battle for a 'comfortable' society.

[Galant]

It has advantages if you're cynical enough. The police have become lazy camera watchers so you can pretty much get away with whatever you want as long as it is away from a camera. Suspect non-cyber-crimes, or any other activity, will gradually get pushed down the priority list so those who choose to live outside the internet of things will have relatively unmolested lives.

Unless they decide to harass you for just that reason.

[wasabi]

Unless they decide to harass you for just that reason.

Perhaps. The case in point I can think of is driving on the UK roads. People nowadays habitually do completely illegal stuff APART from speeding in areas likely to be camera-vanned.

[virtuo]

There is already technology to 'blur out' faces automatically (See Google Street View), how about building this in to camera/phone firmwares with some sort of key based system so only pre-approved faces aren't blurred out?

Although in Japan/HK/etc, I guess it's not the faces they are always interested in..

[wasabi]

There is already technology to 'blur out' faces automatically (See Google Street View), how about building this in to camera/phone firmwares with some sort of key based system so only pre-approved faces aren't blurred out?

Although in Japan/HK/etc, I guess it's not the faces they are always interested in..

Problem is, realistically it would have to mean it goes back to Google et al to check the approved face list. Back to the Who watches the watchmen? issue.