
Court rules Shutterfly may have violated privacy by scanning face photos - Jerry2
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3020457/data-privacy/court-rules-shutterfly-may-have-violated-privacy-by-scanning-face-photos.html
======
DanBC
> In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Norgle rejected
> Shutterfly's argument that only in-person scans of people's faces are
> covered under the statute.

That can't be the law, right? Because "scan your face" vs "take a photo and
scan that" are identical.

[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&Ch...](http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57)

> "Biometric information" means any information, regardless of how it is
> captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual's biometric
> identifier used to identify an individual.

Did shutterfly misread this...

> Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures,
> photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or
> screening,

as this...?

> Biometric identifiers do not include [...] photographs.

~~~
detaro
I'd guess they were surprised by the law and now their lawyers are trying to
come up with a defense.

------
dizzystar
Legal or not, this is plain creepy. For those who don't use Shutterfly or
Facebook, knowing our faces, found on random backgrounds of photos, are being
scanned and analyzed without even our implicit consent (by not having these
services at all) is simply mind-blowing.

I don't know how these companies can make this consensual or not. If they scan
a face that opted out, then that information of "not opting in" is stored
somewhere, so even to opt out, you have to be implicitly opted in once.

I think the issue is that these companies actually believe people don't want
or value any sliver of privacy. I really don't understand how this is
different than government dragnets.

------
gavazzy
Court rules that the case may proceed. It is not making a judgement whether
they actually violated the rules.

~~~
detaro
That's what the headline says?

~~~
mahouse
The headline is written in a presumptuous way that makes it look like the
court has already decided on it, which is not what the have done yet.

------
newday
It's funny, because on the one hand we have privacy advocates demanding
simpler and plain language TOS's that aren't so draconian. On the other hand,
if you don't have a draconian TOS's, you're going to get sued by a privacy
advocate.

~~~
username223
Or better, how about simple and honest business models? "Shutterfly is a photo
printer, so they make money by charging people to print photos." No biometric
database is needed.

~~~
kefka
But that is a low-margin business.

So I have tons of images associated with accounts. So, why can't I do a
'google' and image mine too? Aaaand, I can sell the results to whatever data
company?

Suddenly, higher margins and fulfills corporate charter.

~~~
kuschku
A business making high margins is always suspicious – because they need to get
the money from /somewhere/, and if you’re a customer, then the company will
only get those margins by charging you more than it is worth.

(By the way, too high margins are even illegal in some countries)

~~~
kefka
That's the special part of this: People who buy prints that they upload are a
customer _and_ a product.

Companies that buy the aggregate big data package of all individual customers
are also customers.

A simple EULA boilerplate "we can do whatever we want with your images" is
usually enough to disclaim liability or privacy... Because you chose to upload
them out of your control.

I didn't say it was ethical.

