Some of you might recall that back in september I presented a short paper to a Unesco conference on AI. As the blurring out of faces was a hot topic at the time, I decided I would talk about reconciling facial recognition with law about private information. It was all jolly good fun and looked splendid on Bingo's scholarship CV. A number of you said you'd be interested in the paper and I'm sorry I haven't shared it with you individually. Instead, I was trying to get a written revised version published, and now that's happened I can share it with all and sundry! If you're still interested, it can be downloaded form the national Teaching Repository at:
https://doi.org/10.25416/NTR.24982080.v2
A couple of blindness-related disclaimers before people start kicking off:
1. you'll have to forgive the examples at the outset of the paper. they were sexed up a bit so as to grab attention.
2. I am aware that things have moved on, even since september. The descriptions provided by Be My AI are superb and universally available now, for example. You do get hints at emotions, which Bing never seemed to do for me. but the key point is about putting names to faces and in that context, the debate continues.
I'd be particularly interested on folks' take on the idea right at the end: even if there would be difficulty putting names to faces globally, how conceiveable is it that, say, with Be My AI or similar having access to your contacts nd so forth it could use that to at least put names to faces of the people you know? siri is always making suggestions for new contacts to me, and Facebook often suggests new friends (not entirely inaccurately, I might add).
Anyway, the paper is out there as a resource should anyone care to read.
Comments
I'd be in favour of contacts having face labels.
Papers aren't my kind of thing but i'm glad you wrote it so that others can enjoy reading it..
I don't care much about privacy, the only issue is I wish I didn't get as much junk as I do in my inbox but I don't care if the government has my info or whatever. I guess I'm very hands off when it comes to that kind of stuff.
Interesting article.
That was quite the article. Interesting and insightful. Perhaps a little controversial as well, as others will likely point out; they could care less about privacy.
I will say, from a "Yank's" point of view, privacy is a very real thing and we have been fighting for some time now to maintain what is left of our right to privacy.
Having said that, I personally do not mind if I am photographed, and if AI can identify me as a person who has a name and is any particular race, gender, etc. I would panic, however, if said AI said, "This looks like Brian, who lives in such and such location and attends that school, or works for XYZ Inc, etc.
That's just me, though. Someone else may say they don't ever want to be photographed without explicit permission, and again others like Brad, could care less.
Nevertheless, your article is a great read, for anyone who values their right to privacy.
PS: From here on out, you will forever be thought of as the a$$-kicking assistant of Magnum. 😝
Oo, that would be so cool and creapy.
I'd love an AI to take a pic of me and tell me my life story.
Sorry it's a bit off topic but that would be so cool.
Emma, Hermione
Emma Watson, Hermione Granger from HP, won't allow photos because she knows it can tag her up to 30m away. As for me, take a pic, no big deal but Brian's right. Siobhan had a beer with her married friend no wedding ring on... No i'm good :)
I consider privacy to be essential but...
I consider privacy to be essential but there's one thing: The sighted don't have to ask anyone who or what is featured in a certain photo and what his/her/its features are, so this is yet another privacy issue to be dealt with. I haven't read the article yet but would like to look into it in a week.
Very Interesting...
This looks very interesting, and I'll definitely come back to it. I don't exactly know where I stand on this whole privacy thing as it relates to photos and the like, but hopefully your paper will help me make that decision. In addition, I'd eventually like to download it and try to read it on my eReader if possible. Thanks for sharing.
Privacy
The way apple focus on privacy is by using the phone and not sending the data out to be analyse outside. If Apple is working on AI and the data can be done within the phone instead of sending it out like Be my AI, would that address privacy? Sometimes the be my AI, is not consistent about this. I got a picture of a friend during new year eve and it describe her well even telling me she had a ring on her right hand. Even saying the dress was above her knees. If we have photos that belong to us and the data is done within the phone and not sent out would that address privacy? Apple probably will do so in iOS 18 if is true that they are working on AI.
Thanks to those who have read the paper
I am genuoely interested in the views of those who read or have read the paper. Brian, I thought your comments very interesting and I'm glad you thought it was a good read, although I don't get the postscript humour so y'lh to explain that one to me! I think Some of you might be commenting without reading. That is fine, but it does mean you won't get the central argument of the paper, nor the context of the law of privacy. I am not advocating open season on everyone's identity. Rather, I am suggesting that the English law of misuse of private information offers us a good conceptual starting point. Apologies if this seems an inappropriately brief response to what people have written here. I will write more in detail when I have more time but just wanted to show my appreciation for those who have engaged with the paper.
@Bingo Little
To explain my post script, I encourage you to check out the following links:
• Magnum P.I. (1980 - 1989) • Jonathan Higgins (Character Bio)
Enjoy. 😃
I actually read it.
@bingo little, I was very surprised at how much I understood. the reason I stay away from papers is because they usually use a lot of language I don't understand. Your paper/speech was very easy to understand and for that I'm greatful.
I think that we should be allowed as much access as possible but as you say, I don't think knowing that I'm brad, I work as at x place and so on is useful or needed to fully understand a pictures layout/description.
I want to thank you again because usually I'd shy away from this kind of stuff thinking I wasn't smart enough to truly understand it but I was and that's nice.
Thanks Brad
I'm glad you liked the paper. i do try, in my academic writing, to make things appropriately uncomplicated. Mind you, I've just written something about a very interesting case decided by the Supreme Court last week which became, notwithstanding my best efforts, rather complicated! Paul v. Wolverhampton NHS Trust - very intresting case indeed.
Quite a lot of people are saying that they would not liked to be photographed without their permission. Fair enough, but then don't appear in places where that might happen i.e. don't go anywhere at all. Or, more accurately, I don't think you can legitimately claim a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding, say, what you look like or what you're wearing if you are in the backgrounf of the photo I take of my family on our day trip to Hampton Court Palace or similar.
Keep it coming, folks. it's great that the papre has stimulated interest.
I don't think that's possible.
Everyone is recording and taking photos plus, at least in the UK, there's CCTVs everyware for our safety. It doesn't bother me.
I have not read the paper yet, but have a question.
As I said earlier, I already plan on going through the paper in a week or so, and will probably have more things to add then, but now I have a question: The sighted also take photos with other people and objects in the background, and upload/post them on social media or share them with others without having to worry about whether Jack will be noticed with his outstanding outfit. There are also TV programs, Youtube videos and other types of content where those who just happen to be there can also be photographed or filmed and seen by those watching. So this would also have to be a privacy violation in that case. And as I said earlier, looking at the issue from another perspective, it is also a privacy issue that I have to ask someone sighted for a description for a photo and let him/her know my motives or what I care about the most/what I want the describer to focus on.
I don't think it is.
If it were, everything would be private and that's just not how the world works.
Privacy vs Perception
I would encourage everyone to take a few minutes and read the article. It really is a good read. Although it was written by a *gasp* "Barrister" *cough* it is written plainly and to the point, without a whole lot of legalese nonsense. There is also a sprinkle or 2 of relevant history thrown in as well.
Finally, it will make for a more interesting, and perhaps entertaining discussion.
What? This (is) AppleVis, is it not? 🤨
After all, AppleVis is nothing, if not a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
/End shameless plug and plagiarism.
Edited for a "Little" perfection. 🤭
I already claim it shouldn't be...
In response to those saying what I mentioned in my previous comment would not be a violation of privacy. And by that I am referring to taking photos featuring other people in the background with their physical features, not having to ask others for descriptions.
Apple AI
What would happen if apple get their AI to process the photo within the phone instead of sending it out like Be my AI? Would that address privacy? If have the photo in our phone and get it analyse within the phone!
Re: Apple AI
That is in the eye of the beholder. After all, an argument can be made, that an individual, in any particular place, at a specific point in time, can be a violation of another's privacy.
Think on that. 🤨
Enes Deniz makes a very good point
This needs some thinking about but there is an argument, I think, for saying that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of my own subjective preferences and that, perhaps, such is violated every time I have to disclose those subjective preferences to a sighted person in the course of asking what a photo looks like. Now, violation might be inevitable and a court might deem it in the public interest not to get that granular about such matters, but it's not hard to envisage an example of where this might matter: suppose, say, I am on a dating site and certain features of a person's appearance matter to me particularly. to some, Suppose, for instance, I want someone with long hair, or someone shorter than me, or someone Asian, or someone from a white ethnic background. it's not hard to imagine that, insofar as those thoughts and feelings are concerned, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. i suppose the counterargument might be that I could still have that if, say, I disclosed it only to my best friends and asked them to help me with the photos on the dating site. Perhaps so, but people have lost friends over disclosures like that. This definitely needs more thinking about.
Brian, you are very kind. Barrister is the word in the United Kingdom - as in barristers and you attorneys, get you on your homeward journeys.
Re: Barrister
Thanks, Bingo, I edited my post. The very last line is especially insightful. 😉
Brian
Talking about reality not what if and so on. Apple is working on making siri provide you with info about your health such as sleep data, ECG, and more in the future. I think apple could process the photo and privacy issues be address. Anyone who is sighted and is in Hawaii on the beach is taking a picture of a hot woman in a tiny bikiniand there is no issue of privacy. If we can process the photo in the phone, privacy is no longer an issue.
Holger
I think in your example, it depends entirely on the person being photographed.
With regards to Siri, that functionality already exists. You just need to give Siri permissions within the Health app.
Brian
You can do the same with pictures within siri. Will see in iOS 18. However I will not hold my breath. Apple can do so much if they want regarding description and AI. If Be my AI who are not made of money can do so Apple can do much better.
Remember the sinister side everyone
Remember at least one or two people who've committed terrible crimes, use an iPhone because well, Apple doesn't want to let the cops look at it. A mass shooting in California comes to mind. Apple needs to do something so law enforcement as my parent worked for at the time, could have and should have, a right to that phone to find out if the jerk planned this attack.
This isn't an issue of the cops
The police have nothing to do with this issue. i understand the confusion but just because something is in court it doesn't mean it is a criminal case. All the cases cited in the paper are, in fact, civil cases where a ha ssued B in the tort of misuse of private information (or, in the case of Naomi campbell, in the tort of breach of confidence as at that time misuse of private information did not exist). The premise on which this argument rests is that there wil be some agreed international way forward on this, as in my opinion this is absolutely necessary. It is also true that the US generally is very suspicious of international conventions of any kind so will take an awful lot of persuading before it signs up. That might prove an irreversible difficulty for settling on a way forward for facial recognition.
Holger, the bekini example might actually constitute a criminal offence in the UK. ICertainly if your aim or purpose is to take a photograph of that particular woman you would be in some trouble. that said, it might not constitute the tort of misuse of private information.
Holger
I was referring to the health information. However, I agree, we will see what Apple's got cookin' in iOS 18.