Nothing is free. AI company scraped 30B Facebook photos and provided data to LEO

[crash_davis 23,161]

TLDR: Clearview AI scraped 30 billion Facebook photos to build it's facial recognition database and gave it to the police/law enforcement.

So this begs some questions. Are Apple, Google, Amazon and other photos storage services also providing, directly or indirectly or maybe without their knowledge, photos to services which may not be legally or ethically using the photos? Would you ever know? How did this company have access to 30 billion of Facebook's photos? 

I shut down my Facebook account years ago. I'm sure an ethical company like Facebook deleted all the photos from my account and they were not included in the 30 billion photos. 

People, including me, trust that the companies which hold their private information and data are going to keep it private. Security is often an afterthought as it's all cost and no revenue. Or they can sell the data as a means of additional revenue. They gave you the service for "free". They have to get revenue from it somehow.

Do I have anything to fear that my face and identity is prob on this database? Prob not but this shit doesn't sit well with me.

 

Longish article but worth the read. Makes you think about what you share with companies. That applies to photos, docs stored in cloud servers, to seemingly innocuous DNA family tree kits. You have NO idea who and what has access to that data and what it's being used for today or in the future.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/clearview-scraped-30-billion-images-facebook-police-facial-recogntion-database-2023-4

 

Just some highlights from the article...

 

A controversial facial recognition database, used by police departments across the nation, was built in part with 30 billion photos the company scraped from Facebook and other social media users without their permission, the company's CEO recently admitted, creating what critics called a "perpetual police line-up," even for people who haven't done anything wrong. 

 

Clearview took photos without users' knowledge, its CEO Hoan Ton-That acknowledged in an interview last month with the BBC. Doing so allowed for the rapid expansion of the company's massive database, which is marketed on its website to law enforcement as a tool "to bring justice to victims."

Ton-That told the BBC that Clearview AI's facial recognition database has been accessed by US police nearly a million times since the company's founding in 2017, though the relationships between law enforcement and Clearview AI remain murky and that number could not be confirmed by Insider. 

 

However, even despite internal policies, once a photo has been scraped by Clearview AI, biometric face prints are made and cross-referenced in the database, tying the individuals to their social media profiles and other identifying information forever — and people in the photos have little recourse to try to remove themselves.

 

"You don't know what you have to hide," Guariglia told Insider. "Governments come and go and things that weren't illegal become illegal. And suddenly, you could end up being somebody who could be retroactively arrested and prosecuted for something that wasn't illegal when you did it."

"I think the primary example that we're seeing now is abortion," he continued, "in that people who received abortions in a state where it was legal at the time, suddenly have to live in fear of some kind of retroactive prosecution — and suddenly what you didn't think you had to hide you actually do have to hide."

 

 

 

[NorthLoop 14,304]

Zuckerberg is the antichrist 

[Orange&White 5,557]

The idea that the government doesn't already have your facial recognition stored is pretty far fetched at this time.

You renew your drivers license every few years with a new photo of your face taken each time.

I am not defending this in any way, but that train left the station 10 years ago, if not longer ago.

[crash_davis 23,161]

Just now, NorthLoop said:

Zuckerberg is the antichrist 

In this case, at least publicly, META didn't "give" the photos to Clearview. We know it's bullshit. He built this shit to sell data to any and everyone.

[crash_davis 23,161]

Just now, Orange&White said:

The idea that the government doesn't already have your facial recognition stored is pretty far fetched at this time.

You renew your drivers license every few years with a new photo of your face taken each time.

I am not defending this in any way, but that train left the station 10 years ago, if not longer ago.

Difference it this company has access of every photo you are in building a network of your friends, what you do, where you go, etc. The government didn't have the data to make that complete profile.

[Orange&White 5,557]

Just now, crash_davis said:

Difference it this company has access of every photo you are in building a network of your friends, what you do, where you go, etc. The government didn't have the data to make that complete profile.

Absolutely that is true, but they were going to find that shit anyway if you already had the facebook/twitter/instagram account.

[Deej 77,201]

Clearview AI, after accessing photos of Surly posters:

[crash_davis 23,161]

Imagine if the Nazi's had access to this type of data. Imagine if the US government had this data during the McCarthy era. Identify sympathizers, network of friends, houses and locations that you vacation, etc. All the data that they need to round up and where to search for a targeted group of people and the people who may hide them.

Edited April 3, 2023 by crash_davis

[Brothahorn 10,088]

Are Apple, Google, Amazon and other photos storage services also providing, directly or indirectly, photos to services which may not be legally or ethically using the photos?

Of course.

[NorthLoop 14,304]

Too bad law enforcement in this country is so competent. With this kind of data, they'll solve the Rainey Street murders in no time.

[Bevo 13,653]

So does this mean that I shouldn’t friend Nicole?

[Newdoc 3,465]

1) Read OP

2) Purge all online data going forward

3) Get plastic surgery to look like 1970’s Roger Moore

[crash_davis 23,161]

Just now, Bevo said:

So does this mean that I shouldn’t friend Nicole?

depends on what your definition is of "friend".

[crash_davis 23,161]

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

So does this mean that I shouldn’t friend Nicole?

If she asks to meet you alone by Murder Lake @ 2AM Saturday morning, I'd wear protection and bring a scuba tank.

[Bevo 13,653]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

If she asks to meet you alone by Murder Lake @ 2AM Saturday morning, I'd wear protection and bring a scuba tank.

Scuba tank? This is Nicole, not South Austin’s mom.

[Celery Man 21,028]

Without reading anything at all, probably the company grabbed pictures that are publicly accessible (ie people have their whole profile available for anyone to view, and probably a fuck ton of “profile picture” photos which are usually available to anyone even if your account is otherwise locked down).

Not to say that there shouldn’t be concern about the amount of data that big tech companies have and what they might do with it - there should be. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Celery Man

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,554]

If you put photos on a public facing site, then you shouldn't be surprised or upset if someone has pulled the photo into their database. Now if you had a photo on your phone or in a private folder/service, then thats another story. 

Just like you don't have an expectation of privacy when you go out in public, the same exists in public social media. Lock down your page to friends only if that is what someone wants. Obviously this doesn't prevent a friend from posting your photo on social media but you should be telling them not to if you feel that way.

[crash_davis 23,161]

10 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Scuba tank? This is Nicole, not South Austin’s mom.

According to our own cyber sleuths, she's the Rainey St / Murder Lake killer, allegedly.

[Steel Shank 9,440]

15 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

1) Read OP

2) Purge all online data going forward

3) Get plastic surgery to look like 1970’s Roger Moore

I dubs 70s Lyle Wagoner.

[BabaYaga 15,388]

33 minutes ago, Deej said:

Clearview AI, after accessing photos of Surly posters moms:

 

FIFY

[crash_davis 23,161]

22 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Without reading anything at all, probably the company grabbed pictures that are publicly accessible (ie people have their whole profile available for anyone to view, and probably a fuck ton of “profile picture” photos which are usually available to anyone even if your account is otherwise locked down).

Not to say that there shouldn’t be concern about the amount of data that big tech companies have and what they might do with it - there should be. 

 

20 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If you put photos on a public facing site, then you shouldn't be surprised or upset if someone has pulled the photo into their database. Now if you had a photo on your phone or in a private folder/service, then thats another story. 

Just like you don't have an expectation of privacy when you go out in public, the same exists in public social media. Lock down your page to friends only if that is what someone wants. Obviously this doesn't prevent a friend from posting your photo on social media but you should be telling them not to if you feel that way.

 

Public statements vs what really happened are two different things. I don't doubt for one min that Zuck sold/sells all Facebook data. We may never know. Or if their security is so laxed that companies like this one have unrestricted access. 

In addition, Facebook used to, may still, have security tests where you had to ID friends in photos. That wasn't so much about proving who you said you are as much as it was about expanding their profiles of people, without their consent. I may have been on a few friends photos that I didn't know about but my face was used to validate Facebook's, or another company's AI about me. When people tagged others in photos, it was used to expand the AI profile about people. 

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by crash_davis

[Bevo 13,653]

11 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

According to our own cyber sleuths, she's the Rainey St / Murder Lake killer, allegedly.

Oh, I thought the scuba tank was for the night moves.

[Celery Man 21,028]

15 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

According to our own cyber sleuths, she's the Rainey St / Murder Lake killer, allegedly.

[crash_davis 23,161]

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

Through her windshield, she gave dudes free rides to the lake.

[Wulaw Horn 19,258]

Did they scrape the internet of all nudes and have a list of who is going to get arrested for being too hot?  That list seems more valuable than the stupid one I'm sure they made. 

[goatsaag 279]

9 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Public statements vs what really happened are two different things. I don't doubt for one min that Zuck sold/sells all Facebook data. We may never know. Or if their security is so laxed that companies like this one have unrestricted access.

Does anything about this report suggest that this company had unrestricted access? Seems like they just scraped everything that was public. This seems way more "people don't understand privacy" more than "Facebook bad".

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,554]

9 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

 

 

Public statements vs what really happened are two different things. I don't doubt for one min that Zuck sold/sells all Facebook data. We may never know. Or if their security is so laxed that companies like this one have unrestricted access. 

In addition, Facebook used to, may still, have security tests where you had to ID friends in photos. That wasn't so much about proving who you said you are as much as it was about expanding their profiles of people, without their consent. I may have been on a few friends photos that I didn't know about but my face was used to validate Facebook's, or another company's AI about me. When people tagged others in photos, it was used to expand the AI profile about people. 

 

If other people want to take your photo and share it, you don't have much say so in stopping it. Other than telling your friends to cut it out, or stop posing in photos with them.

I had a wife of friend always "force" everyone to pose for a photo at a dinner and then she would immediately post it on all of her social media pages. I wasn't worried about being seen but I don't go out of my way to have my photos posted online. I rarely post my photos on my own social media so why in the world do I want to be on her page. I declined to join future photos. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but I don't care. I volunteer to take the photo instead. I also don't allow people to tag me on posts or photos.  Why make it easier for AI programs to know me.

[tbone_ 14,292]

Anyone that didn’t see this coming the first instant you heard about Facebook should kick their own ass for being a gullible moron.

[Helobious 9,508]

16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If other people want to take your photo and share it, you don't have much say so in stopping it. Other than telling your friends to cut it out, or stop posing in photos with them.

I had a wife of friend always "force" everyone to pose for a photo at a dinner and then she would immediately post it on all of her social media pages. I wasn't worried about being seen but I don't go out of my way to have my photos posted online. I rarely post my photos on my own social media so why in the world do I want to be on her page. I declined to join future photos. Maybe it makes me a jerk, but I don't care. I volunteer to take the photo instead. I also don't allow people to tag me on posts or photos.  Why make it easier for AI programs to know me.

Eh. You got social media, you have a drivers license photo, you use ATMs, you make purchases inside stores with cameras and walk down streets with cameras. They easily know you anyway. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,554]

52 minutes ago, Helobious said:

Eh. You got social media, you have a drivers license photo, you use ATMs, you make purchases inside stores with cameras and walk down streets with cameras. They easily know you anyway. 

I'm not too worried if the govt knows who I am. like in my example above, I don't want to be on social media pages of people that I don't care about.

[ClubWhatever 12,160]

How is somebody having my picture going to affect my ability to sit on my couch and watch tv?

[Macanudo 13,099]

44 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

How is somebody having my picture going to affect my ability to sit on my couch and watch tv?

It might affect what you watch.   

[Sawbonz 27,790]

I posted this on my FB status a few years back so I’m not worried

 

Quote

 I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The information: The violation of privacy can be punished by law NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this.”