Facebook’s new facial recognition feature

June 15, 2011 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized 

The latest privacy furore surrounding Facebook involves its new facial recognition feature. According to Facebook’s own blog entry on the feature, when you upload photos of people who are already tagged in other photos, Facebook will suggest their names, making it quicker for you to tag your photos.

Now I’m just as keen on privacy as the next person, but some of the anti-Facebook responses appear to me to be slightly overblown, especially those that think that this facial recognition gives governments greater access to information about its citizens. First of all, if governments can access our Facebook photos, they don’t need Facebook’s facial recognition technology to identify us. I’m sure they have their own. So the problem would lie with the photos being online, not with their being tagged. Secondly, just because someone has tagged a photo as being a photo of me doesn’t make it a photo of me. It may well be a photo of me, but the person tagging may have made a mistake, or may have tagged someone else as me in order to get my attention. Thirdly, to the best of my knowledge, I cannot prevent myself being tagged by someone else (but I can prevent other people from checking me in with them to places). I can remove the tag if I wish, but it may be too late. And disabling the facial recognition feature doesn’t mean I can’t be tagged anyway, which suggests that the problem, if there is one, is with tagging itself, and not with the new feature.

Most interestingly for me, though, as a sociologist of technology, is the fact that Facebook is offering a technological means for doing something that we can (and do) do anyway: Facebook says that 100m tags are added to photos every day. Actor-network theory analyzes how networks of humans and non-humans are configured so as to successfully perform so-called “programs of action”. It looks at those tasks that are undertaken by humans and those undertaken by non-humans, without privileging one type of “actant” over another. Often, non-humans (computers, say) can carry out out tasks much quicker than humans: a computer will find me someone’s phone number in the phone book much quicker than I can. Sometimes we are happy for non-humans to be involved in programs of action (such as finding someone’s number in the phone book) and sometimes we are less happy (for instance, cameras that photograph us speeding on the motorway).

I think the way to think about this new feature on Facebook is in terms of actor-network theory, and your view on the feature will be determined by whether you think that having a computer do something you could do yourself (and have been doing yourself) makes the action qualitatively different. Is having a machine help you identify your friends’ faces qualitatively different from you identifying them yourself? Does the fact that the machine can do it far quicker make the very task itself different? If it is OK to tag your friends, does having a computer help you tag them faster make it wrong? If so, how come?

And finally a quick “I’m not naive” disclosure. Of course, the reason Facebook wants to “help” us tag our friends is because Facebook makes money from the information it collects. A tag on a photo is information. I’m not so naive to think that Facebook is taking pity on those who have to spend hours tagging their friends in all their photos. There is real economic value in those tags, and so we should always be suspicious of everything Facebook does. Also, I have no doubt that there are serious privacy threats latent in facial recognition software. The state already knows what I look like (there are photos in my passport and on my driving license). If it wants to, it can film me at a political gathering, run facial recognition software, and thereby know I was at that gathering. That, to me, is much more worrying than Facebook’s offering.

Dystopia or utopia?

September 14, 2010 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized 

I stumbled across this cartoon. It’s quite amusing. I’m a man, so I first read it from the man’s perspective. When you do that, the cartoon appears to be representing a dystopian future. But then I thought that there might be some women who would find this really quite useful. And then I remembered that there are already websites out there in which women can warn other women about men they met on dating sites.

So while we might disagree as to whether the cartoon is dystopian or utopian, it is not particularly futuristic. All the technologies required for doing this are already in place…

The future of privacy

Thanks to dudelol.com

Watching us while we shop

March 21, 2010 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized 

In an article in the New York Times – In Bid to Sway Sales, Cameras Track Shoppers – we learn that shops are filming us while we shop and then analyzing the tape to learn about how shoppers behave. Which parts of the store are more popular? How long do people spend looking at stuff before they buy it? This is all stuff that shop owners think will help them sell more stuff. They’re probably not wrong.

Currently, this is being done to help businesses understand their clientèle better, but, reports the NYT, “privacy advocates” are worried that with facial recognition software added to the mix, this kind of technology will allow stores to gather information on individual consumers.

This is a great example of a future threat to privacy that might emerge through the combination of CCTV cameras and facial recognition technologies, which have not yet reached maturity.