I am still waiting for someone to scrape all the images of naked people on reddit/imgur and do some classification based on the subreddit from which the image comes from. (For those who don't know: a lot of porn subreddits are _highly_ specific to a certain topic which might help for classification)
That is not the same case morally as Tinder because photos posted on Reddit are public and have no expectation of privacy. (also, it's not technically complex to get the image URLs from the Reddit data dumps, albeit getting the images themselves will likely hit a ToS violation)
Data set no longer exists, Tinder probably sent a C&D. I did something similar with FB a while ago -- scraped all photos of people that "Liked" a certain topic. It's no longer possible.
Definitely feels wrong having such easy access to people's pictures; it leads to interesting questions: is your face PII? Do you have ownership rights to your face? What about facial recognition algorithms that use pictures you upload to FB, Instagram, Tinder, etc. to generate, e.g., Haar cascades?
>Is your face PII [personally identifiable information]?
Before computers existed, PII referred to information someone (ie., a human individual) can use to personally identify someone and probably[0] still does. I'd say a picture of someone is a good way to identify someone.
[0] The "probably" is sarcastic. Of course it is PII.
Basic copyright protections mean you have zero rights to random photos you grab from some internet service. It's probably ok to just download them, but doing anything with them creates a derivative work which you cannot distribute without permission.
My point is, this kind of thing is already illegal.
Experiments without informed consent. While Tinder might have something in their T&C which requires that they're allowed to look at the data, it isn't ethical for third parties to scrape and use that same data without informed consent.
Interestingly though, I wouldn't think the same of an instagram scrape. Probably because insta is public by design, while tinder is expected to be local, requires a login and ostensibly is for the purpose of looking for companionship.
There's a difference between public and public domain. Just because something is public, doesn't mean you are free to use it as you wish. You may still require permission to use it for tasks beyond the originally intended purpose.
See, I agree and disagree with that. People on tinder are probably reasonably expecting that their pictures are used for meeting up with locals for the purposes of dating. The debate about whether this is a reasonable expectation isn't really what I'm on about. (Obviously, as techie types, we have a different understanding of how private this stuff really is)
On instagram, it is a broadcasting and publishing platform and it is very clear that by posting a photo, on a non-private-account the photo can be seen and generally browsed by others.
A researcher who conducts a study of "looking at" 400k public instagram photos is doing a different thing than spoofing their location and auto-swiping through 400k lonely hearts.
Obviously people disagree with this since I'm getting downvotes for my position. This is certainly my opinion But I do feel like running a study against one isn't unethical while the other is.
Of course, that should be caveated that "republishing" the scraped data is unreasonable in both cases (IMO). I also think things like this artist http://fortune.com/2015/05/26/instagram-copyright-art/ are reprehensible... but that's art, not science and doesn't actually have the same expectation to abide by ethical principles.
> On instagram, it is a broadcasting and publishing platform and it is very clear that by posting a photo, on a non-private-account the photo can be seen and generally browsed by others.
The keyword is published for "browsing" and other things which are codified. You can't use it for mining data without consent.
I'm pretty liberal about stuff like this and I honestly think it's pretty tasteless also.
I've often said that the sexism issue in tech is overblown (due to various agendas at work) but when you see shit like this (especially in the context of Tinder, a dating app), it's just hard to deny :/
Hoe by now is genderneutral, so who cares. But it implies payment of any kind, so its very inprecise. But i guess from someone who does get laid as often as a graduate data scientist - any deal is better payment, thus anyone having a better deal - aka any deal, is a hoe. Virginity equals moral superpowers.
Still, i wonder what sort of pictures the dataset could correlate if convulated with the swipe quota. And if you could post those pictures as tinder profiles, generating a plattform where neural Nets pose as unavailable gods and goddeses of beauty, driving a generation of swingers into depression.
That kind of analysis (though not the neural net thing...I think...) has likely been done internally by Tinder. It certainly has been done over at OKCupid:
Who cares anyway? Drug junkies and drug dealers on the meat-market, trying to hang nice drapes over everything related to it. If you call it diffrent, the uglyness will go away or at least be kept at bay. Controll the conversation over it and the reality goes away, what a laughing stock of a concept.
So politcal correct code is mandatory. Oh boy.
So if turing himself would appear at your doorstep and his code examples would be riddle with gay insider jokes and wordplay, you wouldnt hire him? Because, profesional behaviour beets a mind that recombines and is flexible any day?
Good thing that relationship is bi-directional- unconventional creative guys are not searching for a job at your company.
If political correctness means not making demeaning jokes about women in your code, then yes, it's absolutely mandatory. Even if you were the most sexist business owner, it should still be obvious that behavior like this invites sexual harassment lawsuits in a professional setting.
And there are plenty of people who manage to be both unconventional and creative without making a juvenile joke that amounts to little more than slut shaming women for using a dating app.
My open source code is riddled with jokes of all kinds on all kinds of hairless monkeys. Demanding dignity you shall have none, because you got none, disserving dignity because you stumble around naked of any - you shall have.
And you know- those professionals tend to have a scope-creep when it comes to professionalism. Do not talk about this its offensive, do not talk about that its offensive, do not talk about this invention, it could offend our buisness-partner XY. No, i demand the right to offend. And to be offended. Call me animal names. I prefer that much more to that mental-graveyard of smiles and conservation.
Insult is preferable to insulation.
Always.
If the church still had power, it would be insulted by da-vincis drawing claiming that humans could handcraft angel-wings. And those intestines- what a insult.
And that darwin guy, claiming we where ape-decendants.
Insult upon insult.
How can any professional gentleman take this kind of talk into there mouth and not demean himself. Outrageous.
Take your silk-sheated scissors and censor somehwere else.
Also sorry, but the whole process of human sexual interaction is demeaning, always was always will be. You have drug dealers and drug buyers, trades that go bust, and the attempt to cram the whole messy affair into contracts that should outlast the varous value-curves the trade-goods in the relationship perform. Its hillarious and hellirious. To not joke about this existential absurdity is to not be a selfaware human.
> My open source code is riddled with jokes of all kinds on all kinds of hairless monkeys. Demanding dignity you shall have none, because you got none, disserving dignity because you stumble around naked of any - you shall have.
K. Make those jokes about a protected class in a workplace and you might be looking at a lawsuit and lawyer telling you to cool it.
> Call me animal names. I prefer that much more to that mental-graveyard of smiles and conservation. Insult is preferable to insulation. Always.
I don't see why going to the other extreme is any sort of solution. Obviously you don't want to work in a PC culture so you can just avoid those workplaces. There are different levels in various fields and locations.
> To not joke about this existential absurdity is to not be a selfaware human.
I think we all get the joke now. We just don't find it funny. So, forgive us if we don't laugh while you continue exercising your right to free speech, and we can continue living side-by-side.
I think it depends on the kind of code. If it's some random experiement done in private away from work for personal exploration then I'd be sort okay to see such demeaning comments in the name of free speech. Professional Work is a no-no.
Pretty sure it'd be grounds for a sexual harassment lawsuit if someone started littering their code with offenses directed at women.
It's discrimination based on sex and against the law to make the workplace favor one sex.
You may not like that trampling of your free speech rights, but there you have it. We agreed as a society to allow women to enjoy the right to earn their own wages in whatever line of work they choose. Good thing too. There are some super smart women out there who have contributed a lot. Can't believe this needs to be said in 2017 but here we are.
Okay, well if you agree that it'd be sexual harassment, I guess color me surprised. I thought you would be leaning against the "affirmative actions" of the courts and would feel it should be legal.
I assume there are jokes that would get under your skin. Perhaps white privilege.
If not, maybe you'd rather we lived in a more combative society. Personally I don't. We need to work from today's society's expectation of civility
Im would very much prefer a "combatative society" as you call it, one where a philosopher is free to challenge any idea, no matter how holy of a cow it is declared. Where the protection of any feeling whatsoever is not used as a battering ram against debate. I rather be in a shouting match with someone who violently disagrees and gives me new perspectives, then in a society that silent threats any disagreement to death.
To be a adult in my opnion means, to be able to handle a rough outside world that constantly atttacks any firm believe i hold. To utilize courts as a artifical replacement parent to create a protected environment, from facts, from ideas, from the very reality of hostility - that breaks down, once not enough economic shield energy is left- what good is that for.
There is after all still the ability, to stop hugging the cactee, turn off that source of media, sit on a meditating pillow and softly shake your head until the arguments to drive back that opposing view emerge from the subconcious stream.
I want a fightcloub of thoughts, insults are great, if they reveal something on the human condition, on what the person im dealing with really thinks and why it its that way and what society can do to realy change that. Not some ilusion of peace at paper-gunpoint, but a real understanding of what we made of allowing for real advances. Not this potemking village of civility, that falls apart at the first twitter huff and puff.
> Im would very much prefer a "combatative society" as you call it, one where a philosopher is free to challenge any idea
I meant combative as in leads to physical altercation.
Raising mental tensions can lead to that.
We already have a very open combative philosophical society. You're not jailed for any of your speech. That's not true in much of the world.
Perhaps you consider that a low bar, but, in terms of human development, I'd consider it state-of-the-art.
I agree with you that a lot of society doesn't want open debate. But, it is legal, and if you crave it, there are venues for it. Debate club, politics, or really anywhere. There's a difference between legal and cultural.
The widespread cultural change you're seeking is much more difficult to achieve than simply making open discourse legal. And, arguably, making everyone talk and react the way you want, combatively, goes against your desire for everyone to have freedom to say what they please.
In fact, you have that freedom, you just don't want to deal with the reaction from society.
> To utilize courts as a artifical replacement parent to create a protected environment, from facts, from ideas, from the very reality of hostility - that breaks down, once not enough economic shield energy is left- what good is that for
Civility? If no courts, then what? Only money, and total rule by the wealthy? That doesn't sound sustainable.
The existence of courts naturally leads to upholding our written law, which needs to be interpreted as well as applied.
> There is after all still the ability, to stop hugging the cactee, turn off that source of media, sit on a meditating pillow and softly shake your head until the arguments to drive back that opposing view emerge from the subconcious stream.
If there's one thing on which we agree it's this.
> Not some ilusion of peace at paper-gunpoint, but a real understanding of what we made of allowing for real advances. Not this potemking village of civility, that falls apart at the first twitter huff and puff.
It sounds like you want better communication. I do too. I think we're getting there.
Honestly to me the world doesn't seem so bad, and I'm sure you have hobbies that you enjoy. I'm going to do some today. Hope you will too!
Nowadays scraping is the Uber of data collection . You will be fraught with legal problems with the dataset and people will block you if you become a big enough problem.
We need to stop giving out our facial pictures freely. Just post the back of your head.
I had a relative who went to a dentist last week. The dentist wanted a head shot. I told her, just tell him no, and unless your going to just accept what my insurance sends you, I'll find another Wingnut.
Giving up our pictures is just crazy.
As to companies protecting data sets, there's always a work around. Taking a picture of the screen will always be available.
Question unrelated to the article, but related to that link: is anyone else developing a knee-jerk reaction to just leaving a web site the moment they ask you to turn ad-block off?
I used to, but now I disable Javascript by default and only enable it on websites that demonstrably benefit from it. The result is, the ad-block blocking scripts never run.
Let's not forget that pictures like this are used for social engineering attacks in domains ranging from finance to prostitution to blackmail. I honestly don't care about the researcher (assuming he doesn't release the data set publicly). It's the responsibility of Facebook, Tinder, and similar sites which profit from such images, to go to extreme measures to protect them even if it incurs significant costs such as counter scraping.
> “I have often been disappointed,” he writes of other facial data sets. “The datasets tend to be extremely strict in their structure, and are usually too small. Tinder gives you access to thousands of people within miles of you. Why not leverage Tinder to build a better, larger facial dataset?”
This guy sounds like a caricature of the exact kind of socially unaware techie who blithely implements dystopian-powering software, because having data and writing code is all that matters apparently. Privacy law admittedly isn't the simplest concept but you have to wonder how blissfully solipsistic someone has to be to write a simple script that scrapes proprietary data without asking himself, "this is so easy, I wonder why no one else has had this idea?"
And then he released the data under CC0, just to add insult to injury by making CC look unethical.
CC aside (which I'm not sure he has the right to release Tinder's data under any arbitrary license of his choosing, CC or otherwise), I'm actually ok with security and privacy vulnerabilities being openly exposed in this way. Some random hacker in his garage figures out how to do it and just does, and makes it completely public. The general public is so complacent about this stuff, it feels like events like this, or the fappening, motivate them far more than most advocacy does, while doing far less harm than a govt agency using it in secret could.
> This guy sounds like a caricature of the exact kind of socially unaware techie who blithely implements dystopian-powering software, because having data and writing code is all that matters apparently.
No. He is a billionaire, which obviously means he is a visionary. These characterizations only apply to mere mortals and other dumb fucks such as those who contribute to Facebooks' MAU numbers.
Worth pointing out that Zuckerberg's obliviousness was very much like the guy featured in the OP, and he was punished for FaceMash and apologized for it [0].
He then created TheFacebook as an alternative to Harvard's online facebook, which was purportedly in development. The official facebook was taking longer because of worries about scraping of user information [1]:
> Davis said that the principle complication with the creation of an official facebook was figuring out how to design an interface so that directory information could not easily be compiled without authorization.
That said, Zuckerberg's TheFacebook got around that because students apparently were happy to upload their information to his service. And the rest is history.
When I upload my photos to Tinder or Facebook I assume they are stored forever and may be used for any purpose by anyone. Any person who assumes otherwise is a fool.
You would be wrong. Uploading your photo to a commercial service that is publicly accessible does not allow someone or anyone else to use your photo for other commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement, without a model release [0].
The rules governing consent and data of human subjects are even more stringent in academia, hence the existence of institutional review boards.
Does this apply internationally? Also, how would you know if your photo is being used commercially? What if the EULA of every major social network and photo sharing service, grants that service ownership and commercial usage of all of the content that you create with them?
> What if the EULA of every major social network and photo sharing service, grants that service ownership and commercial usage of all of the content that you create with them?
Courts would consider it an overreach, and that specific clause would be nullified.
You can't take everything from another party while offering no compensation and expect a court to uphold it.
I know you didn't intend that as legal advice, but I sure hope that you are correct nonetheless. From the article:
> It’s also worth noting that in agreeing to the company’s T&Cs Tinder users grant it a “worldwide, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, right and license to host, store, use, copy, display, reproduce, adapt, edit, publish, modify and distribute” their content — though it’s less clear whether that would apply in this case where a third-party developer is scraping Tinder data and releasing it under a public domain license.
"The idea of consideration is vital to contract law because, in order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be “mutuality of obligation.” In other words, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties to the contract must be required to perform under the contract. Consideration, which represents the commitment that the parties to the contract make to each other, is at the heart of the “mutuality of obligation” rule and, therefore, without consideration, a contract will not be enforceable."
International laws are all different, but American laws are generally among the most permissive. For example, newspapers don't have to get consent forms for everyone who happens to appear in a photo of a public venue. I don't think Google was legally obligated to blur faces in its Street View coverage of America, but it was likely the extremely wise thing to do (nothing stopping government from passing new laws) [0]. But documentaries do -- I'm honestly not sure if that is legally the case or if it's done out of precaution, obviously the majority of TV news and newspaper photos don't blur random people's faces. And for things like the "Ali G Show" [1], you can bet all of those people who were unblurred had signed a release before entering that bar.
In contrast, I know that in the EU, architects have copyright on their work, which means you can't photograph the Eiffel Tower at night and share the photo, legally, without consent [2]
As to how you know if your photo is being used commercially...obviously there isn't a push-notification service (yet) that sends an alert to your inbox. You would just have to notice the commercial usage, as what happened when the teenager who was captured in a CC-licensed photo on Flickr found herself in a Virgin Mobile campaign
I guess, I just have very little faith in my ability to get personal justice versus a foreign corporation. The value of the dataset, when applied to an unethical but lucrative purpose, could easily outgrow the cost of getting caught. Especially if the operation is well isolated from the parent company.
It is not the possibility that I might appear in an ad that concerns me, but rather, that the set of photos that contain me in them, could be used correlate way more information than I would ever consent to releasing voluntarily. I would not even notice that happening.
>You would just have to notice the commercial usage, as what happened when the teenager who was captured in a CC-licensed photo on Flickr found herself in a Virgin Mobile campaign
The issue in that case was (IANAL) nothing to do with the CC licensing but with the fact that the photo was used for a commercial (i.e. marketing/advertising) purpose. Those require a model release form, hence the requirement by microstock sites for model releases.
Virgin Mobile messed up in that they used a photo for a marketing campaign that didn't have a model release form either directly or through an agency that had vetted it.
Editorial use in the US at least doesn't require this even though it's commercial use in the sense that a for-profit entity is using the photo to illustrate a story.
I didn't mean to imply that the CC licensing was at fault, though IIRC the girl and her family did originally include the CC Corporation as a defendant [0] before dropping them from the suit. I was merely stating the fact that just because the photographer has made their photo freely available under CC does not mean the subject has given consent for their image to be commercially used. Virgin Mobile screwed up into thinking that's what CC meant.
Absolutely right. I actually wrote about this at the time. [1] That CC has commercial/non-commercial variants probably add further to the confusion even if they didn't play into this case. As does the fact that the colloquial meaning of commercial is different from the meaning of commercial that's relevant to publicity rights.
I read the parent as saying that they assumed photos on a service could/would be used for who knows what purpose, not that it's the fair or legal thing to happen. That seems a reasonable assumption to start with and be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't happen.
This is absolutely correct. Companies are bought and sold along with their data, and the new owners are not necessarily bound by the agreements or motives of their predecessor. Us users generally have no say in the matter. EULA's that appear to promise a bit of privacy, are usually riddled with loopholes.
Identity is a liability, and a favor that we offer to our peers in order to simplify communication. It does not benefit the person being identified, so much. If I cannot have the identities of the people and projects who consume my data, then I will operate as a fresh, expendable identity.
He is just an amateur, I find it funny that its news since he collected only 40K pictures, any one with couple of hundred dollars and smarts can probably get few million pictures easily using pool of EC2 spot instances with disposable IP addresses.
Since so few details about terms of use on the dataset are available, it's reasonable to assume the access control is put up in place for reasons other than bandwidth concerns.
It's disturbing that Colliani's LinkedIn lists him as a "Cybersecurity Solutions Architect" at PG&E. That's a lot of personal information for someone so clueless.
Perhaps this whole thing was just a very subtle PSA, designed to raise awareness of the dangers of using your real face as an avatar? If so, it seems to be effective, in this format.
This is a serious ethical violation in my opinion. Like the sjsu student in that article, I am extremely uncomfortable with people of suspect moral compas analyzing my face without my consent. As a Bay Area frequent user of tinder, I do actually feel violated. Only one of my photos is public on my profile but with that you can find my name, my college, and then using basic data engineering you can find my phone number and address. Using face recognition you could theoretically scour the web for nudes or suspect information and stalk, blackmail or worse. I hope someone drops the hammer on this person to send a message and prevent future occurrences of this
I do not believe that it would be possible to prevent this sort of behavior by force. Any script kiddie could pull this off, and there are more born every day. Some of them barely even understand Western values, let alone have an incentive to value them.
Rather than (edit: in addition to) relying on protection, we should rely on personal safety practices. Using our own portraits as avatars may have been a mistake, in hindsight. I will recommend to my friends, that they teach their children to use a photo of their favorite toy or something, instead of their own face.
Tinder is very cut throat. The whole social network values people based on their appearances. When I was single I had written a bot on their v1 API when Tinder was first on app store. I was curious of their security and social dynamics. No intent to release anything in public.
I had then created 5 different profiles of same picture, with different shades of skin color. Interesting results. I came to the conclusion that tinder wasn't for me. I had to try good ol' face to face interactions.
I'm sure Tinder and snapchat are a trove of data to help study the science of human mating. Releasing a dataset online is crazy although I wonder what would happen if tinder got hacked and their data published on bittorrent like the fapgate with celebrities that happened a while ago.
A security disaster like that is just waiting to happen.
80 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] thread[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/17/findface-...
(because we already had that, and it was a fiasco)
Definitely feels wrong having such easy access to people's pictures; it leads to interesting questions: is your face PII? Do you have ownership rights to your face? What about facial recognition algorithms that use pictures you upload to FB, Instagram, Tinder, etc. to generate, e.g., Haar cascades?
Before computers existed, PII referred to information someone (ie., a human individual) can use to personally identify someone and probably[0] still does. I'd say a picture of someone is a good way to identify someone.
[0] The "probably" is sarcastic. Of course it is PII.
My point is, this kind of thing is already illegal.
Interestingly though, I wouldn't think the same of an instagram scrape. Probably because insta is public by design, while tinder is expected to be local, requires a login and ostensibly is for the purpose of looking for companionship.
There's a difference between public and public domain. Just because something is public, doesn't mean you are free to use it as you wish. You may still require permission to use it for tasks beyond the originally intended purpose.
On instagram, it is a broadcasting and publishing platform and it is very clear that by posting a photo, on a non-private-account the photo can be seen and generally browsed by others.
A researcher who conducts a study of "looking at" 400k public instagram photos is doing a different thing than spoofing their location and auto-swiping through 400k lonely hearts.
Obviously people disagree with this since I'm getting downvotes for my position. This is certainly my opinion But I do feel like running a study against one isn't unethical while the other is.
Of course, that should be caveated that "republishing" the scraped data is unreasonable in both cases (IMO). I also think things like this artist http://fortune.com/2015/05/26/instagram-copyright-art/ are reprehensible... but that's art, not science and doesn't actually have the same expectation to abide by ethical principles.
The keyword is published for "browsing" and other things which are codified. You can't use it for mining data without consent.
I've often said that the sexism issue in tech is overblown (due to various agendas at work) but when you see shit like this (especially in the context of Tinder, a dating app), it's just hard to deny :/
The only thing I lament is the non-existence of a similar term to describe men, because promiscuity is not only negative when women do it, of course.
Still, i wonder what sort of pictures the dataset could correlate if convulated with the swipe quota. And if you could post those pictures as tinder profiles, generating a plattform where neural Nets pose as unavailable gods and goddeses of beauty, driving a generation of swingers into depression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv43HXcRhw4
https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-mathematics-of-beauty-51bd25...
https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0...
https://theblog.okcupid.com/race-and-attraction-2009-2014-10...
And there are plenty of people who manage to be both unconventional and creative without making a juvenile joke that amounts to little more than slut shaming women for using a dating app.
And you know- those professionals tend to have a scope-creep when it comes to professionalism. Do not talk about this its offensive, do not talk about that its offensive, do not talk about this invention, it could offend our buisness-partner XY. No, i demand the right to offend. And to be offended. Call me animal names. I prefer that much more to that mental-graveyard of smiles and conservation. Insult is preferable to insulation. Always.
If the church still had power, it would be insulted by da-vincis drawing claiming that humans could handcraft angel-wings. And those intestines- what a insult. And that darwin guy, claiming we where ape-decendants. Insult upon insult. How can any professional gentleman take this kind of talk into there mouth and not demean himself. Outrageous. Take your silk-sheated scissors and censor somehwere else.
Also sorry, but the whole process of human sexual interaction is demeaning, always was always will be. You have drug dealers and drug buyers, trades that go bust, and the attempt to cram the whole messy affair into contracts that should outlast the varous value-curves the trade-goods in the relationship perform. Its hillarious and hellirious. To not joke about this existential absurdity is to not be a selfaware human.
K. Make those jokes about a protected class in a workplace and you might be looking at a lawsuit and lawyer telling you to cool it.
> Call me animal names. I prefer that much more to that mental-graveyard of smiles and conservation. Insult is preferable to insulation. Always.
I don't see why going to the other extreme is any sort of solution. Obviously you don't want to work in a PC culture so you can just avoid those workplaces. There are different levels in various fields and locations.
> To not joke about this existential absurdity is to not be a selfaware human.
I think we all get the joke now. We just don't find it funny. So, forgive us if we don't laugh while you continue exercising your right to free speech, and we can continue living side-by-side.
It's discrimination based on sex and against the law to make the workplace favor one sex.
You may not like that trampling of your free speech rights, but there you have it. We agreed as a society to allow women to enjoy the right to earn their own wages in whatever line of work they choose. Good thing too. There are some super smart women out there who have contributed a lot. Can't believe this needs to be said in 2017 but here we are.
I assume there are jokes that would get under your skin. Perhaps white privilege.
If not, maybe you'd rather we lived in a more combative society. Personally I don't. We need to work from today's society's expectation of civility
To be a adult in my opnion means, to be able to handle a rough outside world that constantly atttacks any firm believe i hold. To utilize courts as a artifical replacement parent to create a protected environment, from facts, from ideas, from the very reality of hostility - that breaks down, once not enough economic shield energy is left- what good is that for.
There is after all still the ability, to stop hugging the cactee, turn off that source of media, sit on a meditating pillow and softly shake your head until the arguments to drive back that opposing view emerge from the subconcious stream.
I want a fightcloub of thoughts, insults are great, if they reveal something on the human condition, on what the person im dealing with really thinks and why it its that way and what society can do to realy change that. Not some ilusion of peace at paper-gunpoint, but a real understanding of what we made of allowing for real advances. Not this potemking village of civility, that falls apart at the first twitter huff and puff.
I meant combative as in leads to physical altercation.
Raising mental tensions can lead to that.
We already have a very open combative philosophical society. You're not jailed for any of your speech. That's not true in much of the world.
Perhaps you consider that a low bar, but, in terms of human development, I'd consider it state-of-the-art.
I agree with you that a lot of society doesn't want open debate. But, it is legal, and if you crave it, there are venues for it. Debate club, politics, or really anywhere. There's a difference between legal and cultural.
The widespread cultural change you're seeking is much more difficult to achieve than simply making open discourse legal. And, arguably, making everyone talk and react the way you want, combatively, goes against your desire for everyone to have freedom to say what they please.
In fact, you have that freedom, you just don't want to deal with the reaction from society.
> To utilize courts as a artifical replacement parent to create a protected environment, from facts, from ideas, from the very reality of hostility - that breaks down, once not enough economic shield energy is left- what good is that for
Civility? If no courts, then what? Only money, and total rule by the wealthy? That doesn't sound sustainable.
The existence of courts naturally leads to upholding our written law, which needs to be interpreted as well as applied.
> There is after all still the ability, to stop hugging the cactee, turn off that source of media, sit on a meditating pillow and softly shake your head until the arguments to drive back that opposing view emerge from the subconcious stream.
If there's one thing on which we agree it's this.
> Not some ilusion of peace at paper-gunpoint, but a real understanding of what we made of allowing for real advances. Not this potemking village of civility, that falls apart at the first twitter huff and puff.
It sounds like you want better communication. I do too. I think we're getting there.
Honestly to me the world doesn't seem so bad, and I'm sure you have hobbies that you enjoy. I'm going to do some today. Hope you will too!
I had a relative who went to a dentist last week. The dentist wanted a head shot. I told her, just tell him no, and unless your going to just accept what my insurance sends you, I'll find another Wingnut.
Giving up our pictures is just crazy.
As to companies protecting data sets, there's always a work around. Taking a picture of the screen will always be available.
This guy sounds like a caricature of the exact kind of socially unaware techie who blithely implements dystopian-powering software, because having data and writing code is all that matters apparently. Privacy law admittedly isn't the simplest concept but you have to wonder how blissfully solipsistic someone has to be to write a simple script that scrapes proprietary data without asking himself, "this is so easy, I wonder why no one else has had this idea?"
And then he released the data under CC0, just to add insult to injury by making CC look unethical.
Laws you may not like are still there to be enforced.
At least I didn't publicize it after and removed it when I was done
Zuck?
He then created TheFacebook as an alternative to Harvard's online facebook, which was purportedly in development. The official facebook was taking longer because of worries about scraping of user information [1]:
> Davis said that the principle complication with the creation of an official facebook was figuring out how to design an interface so that directory information could not easily be compiled without authorization.
That said, Zuckerberg's TheFacebook got around that because students apparently were happy to upload their information to his service. And the rest is history.
[0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/4/hot-or-not-websi...
[1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds-register...
The rules governing consent and data of human subjects are even more stringent in academia, hence the existence of institutional review boards.
[0] http://adland.tv/content/virgin-uses-cc-licenced-flickr-phot...
Courts would consider it an overreach, and that specific clause would be nullified.
You can't take everything from another party while offering no compensation and expect a court to uphold it.
EDIT: Disclaimer: Not a lawyer. Not your lawyer.
> It’s also worth noting that in agreeing to the company’s T&Cs Tinder users grant it a “worldwide, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, right and license to host, store, use, copy, display, reproduce, adapt, edit, publish, modify and distribute” their content — though it’s less clear whether that would apply in this case where a third-party developer is scraping Tinder data and releasing it under a public domain license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
https://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_as...
"The idea of consideration is vital to contract law because, in order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be “mutuality of obligation.” In other words, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties to the contract must be required to perform under the contract. Consideration, which represents the commitment that the parties to the contract make to each other, is at the heart of the “mutuality of obligation” rule and, therefore, without consideration, a contract will not be enforceable."
In contrast, I know that in the EU, architects have copyright on their work, which means you can't photograph the Eiffel Tower at night and share the photo, legally, without consent [2]
As to how you know if your photo is being used commercially...obviously there isn't a push-notification service (yet) that sends an alert to your inbox. You would just have to notice the commercial usage, as what happened when the teenager who was captured in a CC-licensed photo on Flickr found herself in a Virgin Mobile campaign
[0] https://www.cnet.com/news/google-begins-blurring-faces-in-st... (warning, autoplay video)
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
http://www.thefrisky.com/2009-07-15/how-sacha-baron-cohen-ke...
[2] http://www.politico.eu/article/banned-taking-pictures-of-the...
It is not the possibility that I might appear in an ad that concerns me, but rather, that the set of photos that contain me in them, could be used correlate way more information than I would ever consent to releasing voluntarily. I would not even notice that happening.
The issue in that case was (IANAL) nothing to do with the CC licensing but with the fact that the photo was used for a commercial (i.e. marketing/advertising) purpose. Those require a model release form, hence the requirement by microstock sites for model releases.
Virgin Mobile messed up in that they used a photo for a marketing campaign that didn't have a model release form either directly or through an agency that had vetted it.
Editorial use in the US at least doesn't require this even though it's commercial use in the sense that a for-profit entity is using the photo to illustrate a story.
[0] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/chang-v-virgin-mobile-creat...
[1] https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/more-commercial-creative-common... (Video autoplay, grr.)
Identity is a liability, and a favor that we offer to our peers in order to simplify communication. It does not benefit the person being identified, so much. If I cannot have the identities of the people and projects who consume my data, then I will operate as a fresh, expendable identity.
Not to mention there are several million face dataset available easily. http://megaface.cs.washington.edu
Also there is really no point in attacking him, other than for typical clickbait outrage.
Finally how is this worse than those name and shame Tinder/OKCupid/Jezebel blog posts, or the horrible actions of the Wikileaks/Intercept crooks.
Since so few details about terms of use on the dataset are available, it's reasonable to assume the access control is put up in place for reasons other than bandwidth concerns.
Rather than (edit: in addition to) relying on protection, we should rely on personal safety practices. Using our own portraits as avatars may have been a mistake, in hindsight. I will recommend to my friends, that they teach their children to use a photo of their favorite toy or something, instead of their own face.
I had then created 5 different profiles of same picture, with different shades of skin color. Interesting results. I came to the conclusion that tinder wasn't for me. I had to try good ol' face to face interactions.
I'm sure Tinder and snapchat are a trove of data to help study the science of human mating. Releasing a dataset online is crazy although I wonder what would happen if tinder got hacked and their data published on bittorrent like the fapgate with celebrities that happened a while ago.
A security disaster like that is just waiting to happen.
Imagine how disappointed he would be if someone took all his pictures of him, his wife/husband, and family members and released it under CC0.
This is absolutely disgusting and shameful.
How much of his actions you think are motivated by the fact that he likely never got a single women to swipe right, let alone go on a date with him?