You are the product
I can understand the alleged practice for a free app.
But for subscribers as well?
Vimeo's cloud-based video-editing app Magisto analyzes thousands of people's faces using AI and stores their biometric data in a database without their consent, it is claimed. Magisto is, from what we can tell, Clippy or a Microsoft Office wizard but for corporate marketing videos: you select a template video, upload your own …
"the rub appears to be that when you upload a video or photo containing someone's face, Magisto detects the person's presence and generates a unique fingerprint, or face print"
I wonder what would happen if you uploaded a picture of your ass?
(Reminds me of a an old joke about a one-eyed cat)
However, what it apparently doesn't say is it's not just about 'you'. It should be saying something like: “may include or reflect personal information that could identify you and of anyone else who's image you upload”
A machine readable format which allows you to identify and track people without any human effort.
E.g. I see your face in this video, and without needing to review any further footage manually (think watching CCTV on x2 speed) you can be picked out of any other video.
The difference is it makes the task easy to do at scale, whereas some level of anonymity was previously found by being 1 in a crowd, now you are FACE_ID:0011010101010101011101010 in all crowds ever recorded
The general consensus at the moment is that this should require consent, as it's not the same thing as passing a stranger in the street who wont remember you
What I haven't yet figured out is that since I as photographer have exclusive rights to any picture or video that I have personally taken in any area where privacy is not presumed (which is the law in the United States, including Illinois) how the state can then claim that neither I nor a third party have the right to process the images or possess a digital representation of them?
The two are mutually exclusive, so I would assume that they presume that the latter preempts the first -- but the law doesn't allow for such a preemption. I'm just waiting for the counter-suite from some lawyer trying to get rich.
If the assertions are correct, Bradley Acaley admits to uploading photographs to Magisto which, as a standard feature of their platform generated biometric data from those photographs for Mr Acaley and kept that data in Mr Acaley's account for his future use, performing automatic collation and categorization of Mr. Acaley's data. Since Magisto appears to have been acting at the direction of Mr Acaley, wouldn't Mr. Acaley be just as guilty, if not more so, for the alleged violations of the Illinois law? In fact, since Mr. Acaley is the one who "pushed the button", isn't Mr. Acaley the one who actually generated and collected the biometric data, and thus his lawsuit really serves as a written confession?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019