Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

[bovlomov]

In this case it was a pub. Is that a public place? It happens in people's homes too.

I've yet to find a pub that didn't allow photos and were the public weren't allowed; that makes it public.

My friend had no agency in this. He was the one being snapped. Not being a Facebook user, he has no Privacy Settings.

I could post a picture on here and tag someones name. In that regard this forum is as rubbish as Facebook.

As I said, it happens in private homes too.

Does anyone here post named photographs on the forum without permission?

But do you really see no problem with this? I mean, the owner of the phone, the photos, the posts, the phone's location, the social network, all being collected in one place. And all being sold for political or commercial ends? Are you happy with that? Do you think it's the same as someone, in the past, taking a snap in the pub and pinning it to the church noticeboard? Qualitatively and quantitively?

I realise that, by being bothered about it I'm probably in a minority.

[Audax67]

You can only hope that, being one in ten million, you won't be noticed.

[mjr]

I could post a picture on here and tag someones name. In that regard this forum is as rubbish as Facebook.

Is it? One of the big problems with facebook tags is that they aren't simply names but some sort of unique identifiers - I think the default is a person's name with a number postscript, like fred.bloggs.1238 - so searching facebook is rather more precise than web searching for a name and getting an image hit from a forum like this.

[661-Pete]

I prefer to try to work these thing out and I'd got to Great Big but Iwas stuck for a C-word.

Perhaps just as well.....

[kwackers]

As I said, it happens in private homes too.

In which case if the owner of the home didn't forbid it then the photo is the property of the person who took it and they can do with it as they wish.

Does anyone here post named photographs on the forum without permission?

I've no idea, but they can if they like.
What does an arbitrary name linked to a random place mean to anyone really? Search for my name on the internet and you'd be hard pushed to find me in the noise.

But do you really see no problem with this? I mean, the owner of the phone, the photos, the posts, the phone's location, the social network, all being collected in one place. And all being sold for political or commercial ends? Are you happy with that? Do you think it's the same as someone, in the past, taking a snap in the pub and pinning it to the church noticeboard? Qualitatively and quantitively?

There are two issues there. Posting and tagging photos bothers me not the slightest. Forbidding it would have horrendous repercussions.
The second issue, that of a 3rd party mining data. No, I don't agree with that but they've been found out, there's a lot of noise and stuff will happen because of it so it's all good.

[Psamathe]

In this case it was a pub. Is that a public place? It happens in people's homes too.

I've yet to find a pub that didn't allow photos and were the public weren't allowed; that makes it public.

My friend had no agency in this. He was the one being snapped. Not being a Facebook user, he has no Privacy Settings.

I could post a picture on here and tag someones name. In that regard this forum is as rubbish as Facebook.

As I said, it happens in private homes too.

Does anyone here post named photographs on the forum without permission?

But do you really see no problem with this? I mean, the owner of the phone, the photos, the posts, the phone's location, the social network, all being collected in one place. And all being sold for political or commercial ends? Are you happy with that? Do you think it's the same as someone, in the past, taking a snap in the pub and pinning it to the church noticeboard? Qualitatively and quantitively?

I realise that, by being bothered about it I'm probably in a minority.

Have named photos of myself posted online is not something I'd want (anonymous not such an issue despite face recognition, etc. - for me it comes down to balance/compromise).

But I wonder where the solution lies. Companies will always be seeking maximum profit and most wont let moral or "doing the right thing" get in the way of that drive for profits. I suspect that the protections must come from governments - which brings us to another much discussed topic of the EU vs UK regulatory priorities. I see the EU as being keen to pursue better regulation protecting the public (and to act when those regulations are broken) whilst I see the UK government as being "all for profits" and the rights on the pubic being somewhat irrelevant where £££££ are concerned.

I think that people who willingly given their personal information to organisations like Facebook can only expect Facebook to comply with the agreed T&Cs. Only if Facebook (and others) break these T&Cs do they have any complaint about their data being used for questionable purposes.

But I do think that information about others who have not agreed to Facebook's (and others) T&Cs should be subject to absolute privacy in that these service providers should not be storing such data. I give my e-mail address so somebody I give it to them alone NOT for them to do with as they please. When I give my e-mail address to a company and they pass it on (contrary to their T&Cs) I pursue it (e.g. I have one case being pursued by the ICO at the moment, another couple recently "resolved" as the companies have admitted their fault and acted to rectify their errors).

Ian

[kwackers]

I could post a picture on here and tag someones name. In that regard this forum is as rubbish as Facebook.

Is it? One of the big problems with facebook tags is that they aren't simply names but some sort of unique identifiers - I think the default is a person's name with a number postscript, like fred.bloggs.1238 - so searching facebook is rather more precise than web searching for a name and getting an image hit from a forum like this.

In the example quoted the person wasn't a member of FB so any tag is just arbitrary.
If they were members of FB then they could prevent the hard tagging in the privacy settings.

[kwackers]

Have named photos of myself posted online is not something I'd want (anonymous not such an issue despite face recognition, etc. - for me it comes down to balance/compromise).

Face recognition makes this entire discussion moot.

It gets better daily and the best systems are already pretty good.
Fairly shortly any picture with an identifiable face will be searchable across the entire internet.

Biometric tagging, it's the future.

[661-Pete]

I suppose my natural shyness has helped me here. I rarely put actual photos of myself and my family online. And they're not exactly incriminating... Of course, I can't tell who has taken a photo of me, clandestinely or whatever. It may be simply a matter of waving a mobile phone about.

For me, to put online, photos I've taken of other people, from a distance, is another matter. I wonder how many zillions of people - well, all right, zillions of 'sentient beings' then - are encompassed in this photo:

Incidentally, anyone is welcome to 'tag' that photo and redistribute it - via any social media they like. Not a problem for me!

[[XAP]Bob]

Is the complaint here about FB or Cambridge Analytics?

The two are very different beasts...

[mjr]

Is the complaint here about FB or Cambridge Analytics?

The two are very different beasts...

Does there have to be only one complaint?

FB have failed to protect user data as required by law.

CA seem to have done illegal things with it.

And then FB has gone into CA since the story broke - I bet by the time the regulators get warrants and get into CA, there will be almost nothing left. https://linux.die.net/man/1/shred

[kwackers]

I think that people who willingly given their personal information to organisations like Facebook can only expect Facebook to comply with the agreed T&Cs. Only if Facebook (and others) break these T&Cs do they have any complaint about their data being used for questionable purposes.

I think there's a generic issue with T&C's - they're huge! Nobody has the time to read or understand them.

[661-Pete]

Is the complaint here about FB or Cambridge Analytics?

The two are very different beasts...

My complaint (as the OP) is primarily about FB. Indeed, until recently, I had never heard of 'Cambridge Analytics'. Nor, I suspect, had many others. But they wouldn't be able to carry out their allegedly nefarious activities, without FB to 'help' them along...

[Psamathe]

Have named photos of myself posted online is not something I'd want (anonymous not such an issue despite face recognition, etc. - for me it comes down to balance/compromise).

Face recognition makes this entire discussion moot.

It gets better daily and the best systems are already pretty good.
Fairly shortly any picture with an identifiable face will be searchable across the entire internet.

Biometric tagging, it's the future.

I wonder who will be using the face recognition. If a photo is posted anonymously on a Facebook page, I would consider it wrong for Facebook to decide to identify the faces and then to tag that image (given it was posted without such identification). If governments use face recognition and post trawling then it's just "big brother" and in some respects a separate debate.

My impression is that the provider companies do need stricter regulation, but mainly to protect those who have not given their information and have not agreed to the providers' T&Cs. If somebody choses to waive their privacy through using e.g. Facebook and agreeing to the T&Cs then that is their choice - but quite wrong for the provider to broaden the user decision to include anybody and everybody else.

Ian

[Vorpal]

Is the complaint here about FB or Cambridge Analytics?

The two are very different beasts...

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/m ... are_btn_tw

both are implicated here
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... even-worse