this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
173 points (98.3% liked)
Privacy
2124 readers
371 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No my face is not public data. While I may choose to appear in public with my face, if a private party wants to use my likeness, in advertising for example, they have to get my consent. It's not in the public domain, unless I'm a celebrity. I see no reason why we should just roll over and allow anyone to use our faces for any purposes without contesting it.
If some government spy wants to make a dossier on me, it would be easy to hire a photographer to take a recent photo. But they can't do this on a large scale. What they can do is pay a company that already has a model of my face, which I object to, and then they can try to run facial recognition algorithms on anyone who turns out at a demonstration, for instance.
I can only mitigate the threat of public photos of myself so much, like not having photos on social media or LinkedIn. Maybe someday I'll be able to opt myself out of facial recognition databases.
Choosing not to let the TSA routinely take a high quality photo of my face is just a small way to mitigate against how many facial recognition databases I'm in, and how high quality their models are.
If any of this is wrong I would be glad to be corrected.
The fact that you don’t like your face being public data changes nothing about whether or not it actually is public data.
Just because you say it is public doesn't make it so.
The fact that you have to sign model consent forms is proof enough that it's not public.
Incorrect, your face is public data. The consent forms for model are the use of your likeness for commercial purposes which is a very different context.
Whether it is for commercial advertising purposes or commercial surveillance purposes, I don't see why surveillance should have less protection.
So far you are all saying this is not correct, but without some kind of documentation it seems like companies and governments are seeing how far they can go before getting pushback.
No the problem is you dont understand what is being said when 'public data' is being talked about.
Data is public if you can freely access it, which I can access information about your face simply by being in the same public area as you. Hell you fucking posted it on Facebook probably for anyone to grab from anywhere.
Your face isnt a privacy problem.
If you wanted to push back on your face as private data, the time to do that was many decades ago.
But your major issue is you dont understand terms and definitions.
You are playing fast and loose with your assumptions.
A few years ago this was no big deal, and lots of people tagged pictures of themselves, but now that facial recognition algorithms are here, we have to start thinking about how to mitigate the privacy concerns.
There is a big privacy distinction between looking at someone's face, and taking a picture of it.
I reject your terms and definitions.
You of course can continue to bury your head in the sand on this it wont change reality. The terms are what they are and no amount of crying by you will change this.
And some of us took these issues seriously ages ago and there are not photos of us on social media linked to our (non-existent) social media accounts.
If you wanted to take it seriously the time was a 2 decades ago.
The key factor here is that the TSA is a government agency, they are not a private entity. None of the laws apply to them w/ respect to biometrics.
Nor do they apply to private spaces you will fully enter. Trust me the lawyers took care of this in terms and conditions.
Get a load of this guy who doesn't understand the separation between state, local, and federal government agencies.
To be fair those lines (in the US at least) are blurring more and more with all the federal overreach currently going on, and cowards in state and local government capitulating, but that's even more of a reason to not roll over and make it as easy as possible for the Feds to keep a live database of our identities and feed the machine that is the security state.
Jfc dude get a clue. Security cameras are not illegal have never been for private or public spaces. And guess what? They record and store your face. Check any grocery store 7/11, etc, entrance they fucking tell you they're recording and monitoring you via a security camera system. dropping facial rec software into the mix doesnt change this. You clowns need to stop acting like you know wtf you're talking about.
Your face is not public data, you are just wrong. Stop.
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Citation: 740 ILCS 14
Key Points:
Prohibits private entities from collecting, storing, or using biometric identifiers (including face scans) without informed written consent.
Includes the right to sue for violations (statutory damages of $1,000–$5,000 per incident).
Relevant Cases:
Facebook settled a $650 million class-action lawsuit in 2020 for violating BIPA via its facial recognition feature.
Your face is not public data, there are literal court cases showing this. A simple Google search would show you this. Sit down and stop spreading misinformation.
I can walk up to you in a public space and take your photo and you cant do shit about it as long as i don't use it in specific ways. Its public data.
Public data does not mean the data can be used in any manner. It means its available to anyone in the public space.
There are literal court cases about this. Finally the government isnt a private entity, so none of your cases/law examples apply to this situation.
Look up any case about someone being pissed their photo was used for a news piece or journalism or artwork.
If you walk into a public space and that public space has cameras with facial recognition software, congratulations! Your face can and will be scanned!
And nothing about that act violates the laws you referenced for the government or any other protected use, such as say journalism.
What are you arguing about, did the law confuse you? It's pretty clear.
Clearly its not since you dont understand it. The law doesn't prevent you from being filmed or it being stored. If it did security cameras wouldn't exist for example. Nor does it apply to governmental agencies.
Feel free to enter any private business with security cameras and you'll discover they have a wonderful sign on the door informing you of this fact