
Facebook has auto-enrolled users into a facial recognition test in Europe - Ours90
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/20/just-say-no/
======
rinze
To save time, they can already put out the PR release saying that they're
sorry, that they didn't expect this, that anyway everything is very clear in
paragraph 2.4.5.C.& of the Terms & Conditions, and that it won't happen again.

~~~
rdiddly
Right... And don't forget the part about how your privacy is important to them
and they think about it a lot.

~~~
verelo
The tech industries proverbial "thoughts and prayers"

~~~
TAForObvReasons
Most of the HN community despises regulations against tech companies, but it
seems like nothing short of strong regulations and severe financial penalties
will rein in the bad actors. We can't expect the companies and their CEOs to
act out of the goodness of anything save for their pocketbooks. We've lost the
presumption of good faith

~~~
tudorconstantin
I think bad PR and vicious backlash from the consumers against foul play is a
stronger deterrent than some one time fines.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
It's arguable whether bad PR and vicious backlash are working, or happening.
As evidence I present... well, here we are.

Edit: added a word

~~~
akshat_h
I think there are no 'obvious' repercussions to the privacy and security
issues that are affecting the general public.

For example, lots of companies have been hacked(Target, Equifax), and AFAIK
there hasn't been credit card fraud on massive scale that has been reported in
the media. It kinda makes people think that media is over inflating the
issue(which it lots of time does), and just not care. We have been hearing
about how this data will be used to say deny loans etc. but nothing has
happened.

I mean even Snowden spying scandal just revealed the extensive spying. What
exactly are the agencies doing with the data and how that negatively impacts
me is not really clear for a general person. And I am speaking as somewhat
tech literate person. Why exactly would an average person care?

Giving up privacy has, I think, almost become 'normal'

------
kennydude
The GDPR states you can only offer opt in and NOT opt out. This is not an opt
in method, no matter how Facebook spins it. I hope the EU pulls them on this
:)

Going by [http://techblog.bozho.net/gdpr-practical-guide-
developers/](http://techblog.bozho.net/gdpr-practical-guide-developers/)
anyway

~~~
Navarr
I'm confused, didn't you opt in when you clicked the checkbox to agree to
Facebook's T&C?

~~~
downandout
Yes, you did. This is just another clickbait headline. GDPR - _when it becomes
active_ \- will outlaw the opt-out strategy. But there is nothing legally
wrong with it _today_.

~~~
PeterisP
No, the existing privacy legislation already requires opt-in for processing of
biometric data; GDPR makes many things stricter, but much of it is already a
legal requirement.

~~~
downandout
Apparently Facebook's well-trained legal team disagrees with your assessment
of European law. Facebook isn't stupid; they wouldn't have done this if it
weren't legal.

------
larkeith
This was originally misreported, and has now been updated. It appears users
have _not_ been auto-enrolled.

Article title is now "Facebook starts its facial recognition push to
Europeans".

From the correction:

" _This article was updated with a series of corrections after Facebook
confirmed the notifications are in fact the rollout of its new consent flow,
not part of the earlier tests. It has also told us categorically that no users
were auto-enrolled in facial recognition tech in Europe — even in the test. So
we’ve updated this article accordingly._ "

------
downandout
Opt-in doesn’t take effect until May 25, so there’s nothing legally wrong
here. It’s also not disingenuous for Facebook to explain the benefits of the
service to the user so that they understand the impact before they disable it.

TechCrunch has been one of the leaders of the anti-Facebook bandwagon
recently, so it must be serving them well. I’d imagine they are getting lots
of clicks to these articles, and, ironically, are making substantial amounts
of money from showing lots of highly targeted ads on them. They are also
undoubtedly using just as many if not more third party tracking tools than the
sites they like to skewer for this practice. One would be wise to read their
anti-Facebook articles with the understanding that they have an economic
incentive to play to their audience by placing a negative spin on everything
the company does.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _there’s nothing legally wrong here_

This attitude is mirrored at Facebook, in Zuckerberg and throughout its
culture: Abuse the user to (and past) the limits of the law. It is why nothing
will change until the EU or the DoJ break Facebook up.

~~~
downandout
Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused users”
“past” the limits of the law?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Has there been a proven (in court) accusation that Facebook has “abused
> users” “past” the limits of the law?_

Many times. The FTC consent decree [1], the violations of Belgian law [2] and
the violations of German law [3] come to mind. (In each case, a court ruled or
supervised a settlement. In each case, Facebook continued breaking the law.)
There are many more.

Facebook's culture is broken. The precedence for such lawless cultures is they
get broken up or they go Enron.

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2011/11/faceb...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-
keep)

[2] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-
belgium/facebook...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-
belgium/facebook-loses-belgian-privacy-case-faces-fine-of-up-to-125-million-
idUSKCN1G01LG)

[3] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-
pri...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-facebook-court-case-privacy-
settings-terms-of-use-brought-vzbz/)

~~~
downandout
With regard to the FTC, the agreement with them was reached specifically to
keep it out of court. No judge or jury ruled on the merits of the allegations.
A judge may have been involved, but only to approve the terms of the
settlement. To my knowledge no US court has ever made the kind of finding you
were implying they have.

With regard to the European countries, I guess I should have been more
specific in my question in limiting it to the US. Finding of fault by European
courts/governments against large US corporations is nothing new and doesn’t
imply any illegal intent on the part of the accused. Cash-starved, often
socialist governments found throughout Europe will always find ways to use
their broadly written laws to obtain badly needed government revenue from US
corporations. In fact GDPR is just a massive expansion of this strategy.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Convenient that all the courts and regulators, acting under court supervision,
that have ruled against Facebook are illegitimate. First time, too, I've heard
of modern Germany being referred to as lawless.

~~~
downandout
I didn’t refer to Germany as lawless. In fact they have gone the other
direction - they have laws on the books that are so broadly written that any
foreign corporation can be caught up in them without intent to violate them.
It’s also rather convenient that with GDPR, Europe has created a sweeping
regulation that happens to disproportionately affect and is sure to generate
massive fines from deep-pocketed corporations based _outside_ of Europe. Do
you think that is a coincidence?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Do you think that is a coincidence?_

Facebook broke laws, was fined by courts and regulators in multiple countries,
kept breaking laws, made a mess on both sides of the Atlantic, lied about what
happened and then tried to throw it under the rug. Meanwhile, leaks from
inside show zero repentance or even cognizance among employees of something
having gone wrong.

The EU is addressing this failure with regulation; we'll solve it more
decisively by breaking Facebook up.

~~~
downandout
_we 'll solve it more decisively by breaking Facebook up._

Good luck with that. Facebook is not based in a socialist country. In Europe,
by now they’d have undoubtedly been broken up or even taken over by the
government, with revenues either flowing directly to the government or
collected through high tax rates, fees, and fines.

That is not the case here, where Facebook is based. I barely use Facebook for
personal purposes, but I respect their right to exist, innovate, and make a
profit. I also have a sense of logical personal responsibility that seems to
be missing the the anti-Facebook folks. When I share something publicly, I
fully expect that it will be...shared publicly. When I agree to be bound by
the terms of conditions of a website...I agree to be bound by their terms and
conditions. Somehow that is lost on all the people whining about it. How can
anybody do business with or even employ people that publicly state that they
do not recognize contract law?

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> In Europe, by now they’d have undoubtedly been broken up or even taken over
by the government, with revenues either flowing directly to the government or
collected through high tax rates, fees, and fines.

Large companies based in Europe that haven't been "broken up and taken over"
by "the government":

    
    
      Royal Dutch Shell (UK & Netherlands)
      BP (UK)
      Total (France)
      Volkswagen (Germany)
      Daimler (Germany)
      BNP Paribas (France)
      Carrefour (France)
      Banco Santander (Spain)
      Fiat (Italy)
      BMW (Germany)
    

etc. etc. etc.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_European_compa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_European_companies_by_revenue)

------
Lionsion
I still have a Facebook account (which I'm slowly backing away from), here's
how I (hopefully) poisoned their facial recognition data.

My profile photos have always been untagged group photos or me in a Halloween
costume, etc.

Upload stock photos:

1\. Go to
[https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=person+model&...](https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=person+model&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=newest&image_type=photo&measurement=px&safe=true)
Play with the search terms to get people sort of like you.

2\. Download a few dozen images (or more). The site gives you the options of
finding other photos of the same model. I figure it's probably good to have
the poison data be somewhat self-consistent.

3\. Upload them to Facebook and tag yourself and your friends in them. I kept
them in a non-public album, so I wouldn't spam my feed with this stuff. I
suppose I could make them public later, once they're a little old.

4\. I've also done this on my girlfriend's account, as well as a couple close
friends.

Reverse tag:

When I used to upload and tag real group photos, I'd swap the tagging (e.g.
tag a friend as myself and myself as my friend).

I also try to keep the volume of poison photos far larger than real ones. I
don't personally upload and tag any photos of myself anymore.

I've always kept the facial recognition stuff like this turned off, but I
don't trust Facebook to not to reverse the setting just because it wants to.
Eventually I want to delete my account, but I can't just yet due to event
invites.

~~~
Waterluvian
You're likely just putting a lot of effort into helping them test an edge case
where tagged photos really don't match. You're probably doing them more of a
service than all the normal account users.

~~~
Lionsion
I'm not so sure. If that was really a case they cared about, it would be easy
for them to generate their test cases themselves.

------
mtrn
I am glad, I do not need to worry that much about these things, thanks to my
/etc/hosts file[1].

[1] One of many versions:
[https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f...](https://gist.github.com/thomasbilk/1506210/2d20f47bbcca75b2f78d6909c1637501000d846f)

~~~
reaperducer
If the bits going through your router were the only way Facebook gathered data
about you, that would make sense. But it's only one way. You don't even need
to have a Facebook account to have a Facebook profile.

~~~
TomMarius
So how is Facebook filling up my profile with no input data? They might create
_a_ profile based on data my friends publish, but they won't be able to
connect it with my IP or my identity.

~~~
reaperducer
There's a whole Google full of information on this.

~~~
TomMarius
I found none, that's why I'm asking. There is technologically no way to
connect me (my browser/phone that sends no information to FB) and my "profile"
made up by a few photos of me that my friends have uploaded.

------
sshagent
I'm in Europe (England) and when i fired up facebook on my phone this morning,
i got the option to opt out of this. The accept it button was the default and
obvious button to click on though.

~~~
JetSpiegel
Does GDPR apply in the UK post-Brexit?

~~~
davidgl
Yes, it’s already been passed into uk law

------
thotaway
Cultural rot, combined with an unrepentant leader, means the company can’t be
saved.

------
nightsd01
Am I the only person who is getting annoyed at these increasingly hysterical
articles shrieking about Facebook’s supposedly deceptive practices?

Because for christs’ sake, Facebook is one of the most OPEN and transparent
tech companies around when it comes to data privacy. Many companies out there
are far shadier when it comes to this stuff.

Let’s face it, no one wants to pay for Facebook. Personal data for advertising
is pretty much the only way Facebook can exist.

~~~
proxygeek
The news media has a way of using the "wave". The barrage of articles with FB
caught with it's hands in the "cookie jar" will contiue piling up. And a lot
of them are just trying to get on in the action but some - like this one here
- are genuinely upsetting and need to be reported.

The issue here is not the business model of FB but the sneaky ways it tries to
make it seem something completely else. While the audience here at HN and
similar forums are more than aware of the business model, I'm pretty sure if I
asked my mum about it, she'd draw a blank or would not be completely informed.
It's to a population like this who are most likely to fall for dark UX
patterns and other shady ways FB uses for getting an uninformed consent.

And that's not right. I think, the outrage is not about the business model as
much as it is about (un)informed consent. Sometimes - like in this story -
almost while cocking a snook in the face of regulatory authorities.

------
jnordwick
What's with the clickbait title? The title from the article is:

"Facebook starts its facial recognition push to Europeans"

Did it change? Please change. @dang @sctb

------
Bizarro
Is this a joke? Is Facebook becoming a parody of itself? Are the inmates
running the asylum?

Irrespective of the legality, it's bizarre that they would roll out some
creepy, facial recognition right now...especially in Europe.

------
nisdec
There are way too many emotions and little facts provided in this article,
it's a really hard read tbh.

------
textmode
"Art. 7 GDPR Conditions for consent

4\. When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be
taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the
provision of a service, _is conditional on consent_ to the processing of
personal data that is _not necessary for the performance of that contract_."

A question to ask of Facebook is whether collection of such personal data as
facial recognition is _necessary_ to provide the service the user wants.

For example, if the user wants to keep in contact with a friend through
Facebook, is facial recognition _necessary_ for Facebook to provide that
service?

If it is not necessary, and Facebook asks for consent anyway, then should the
user be able withhold consent and still receive the service she wants.

If not, under Art 7(4) is there an argument that consent was not freely given.

Facebook could try to argue that facial recognition is "required" to provide
the service, but what if the existing user only wants the service she enjoyed
in the past (without ever having to consent to facial recognition).

In sum, is it possible for users to reject new "features" and still receive
the service they want, if those "features" are not _necessary_ in order to
provide the service.

Are facial recognition "necessary" to provide the service to users that users
want or is it necessary to provide service to advertisers that advertisers
want.

Who wants facial recognition? Is it the users choice.

    
    
       Do you want to turn on facial recognition?
    
       [ ] Yes
       [ ] No

------
MistahKoala
This doesn't sound substantially representative of my experience of being
presented with this earlier today.

As far as I can recall, I was presented with two options: enable facial
recognition; and reviewing my other options (which I clicked), which were
something like confirming my decision to decline, and downloading my data and
closing my account. It was a fairly brief process, so my memory isn't precise.
I do recall that I wasn't automatically enrolled into facial recognition,
though - I had to make a conscious choice either way, and although it was
obvious that Facebook were encouraging me to opt in, it didn't feel like I was
being tricked or coerced (perhaps save for the example of safeguarding my
identity).

The process I went through in my desktop browser was not the same as the one
I've seen for screenshots of the mobile process.

------
Semirhage
_Not only is the tech turned on, but users who click through to the settings
to try and turn it off will also find Facebook attempting to dissuade them
from doing that — with manipulative examples of how the tech can “protect”
them._

Facebook is such a bad actor, I hope that politicians figure out that they
could make a name for themselves kicking them in the teeth. Hopefully GDPR can
come in and hurt them too. I realize that the default attitude of many in tech
is that most people don’t know or care about this, but I think they’re wrong.
People do care, but it takes time and repetition to make the point stick.
Helpfully Facebook only has two speeds: scumbag, and turbo-scumbag.

All around the world, we need to start electing politicians who understand
technology, know what dark patterns are, and can intelligently fight for us.

~~~
sli
> I realize that the default attitude of many in tech is that most people
> don’t know or care about this, but I think they’re wrong.

I agree, and I think the actual problem is that a majority of people don't
know why they should care, or even know that they should in the first place.
"I have nothing to hide" is something I hear far too common, after all.

~~~
fixermark
It's actually a bit worse than just that, and something akin to tragedy of the
commons.

The people who actually _do_ have nothing to hide (by which we mean, "the dirt
on the individual is so pedestrian that even if it takes zero effort to find
it, nobody wants it") stand to benefit from the features and interactions
these tools enable. Those who do have something to hide become second-class
citizens, forced to do things the slow, manual way that other people can
automate away by trading out their privacy.

We head into a techno-underclass dystopia if we let individuals decide to
adopt privacy-compromising technologies, because those with worthless privacy
can gain the benefits and will not refrain from doing so to the relative
detriment of those who cannot.

Personal opinion: "It's not my problem you can't participate fully in our
society because X" is a very American opinion, which is why I think there is
such culture clash between Silicon Valley corps and the EU.

~~~
rdiddly
You just gave me another way of thinking about it, thanks. Although I also
think the benefits of social media might be overstated.

------
jelly
This cascade of privacy scandals seems quite well timed on Facebook's part; if
all the blatant issues get publicized then "resolved" just before GDPR's May
25th start then they can extract the maximum value while facing no penalties.
How annoying!

~~~
jacquesm
Facebook is categorically in-capable of cleaning up their mess. There is no
way they will get all their blatant issues out of the way in the next 35 days.

------
siimtalvik
Logging in today, from europe, I received a modal about some updates.

It stated that there are some updates i'll need to review:

One of them, the facial recognition feature.

""" Here's what we'll ask you to review: An option for turning on face
recognition """

Full modal can be seen here:
[https://img1.picload.org/image/dogcpgci/selection_122.jpg](https://img1.picload.org/image/dogcpgci/selection_122.jpg)

Clicking Get Started I received some information on GDPR and their data usage:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprra/selection_123.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprra/selection_123.jpg)

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrl/selection_124.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrl/selection_124.jpg)

Clicking "Manage Data Settings" I was given some examples on data usage:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprri/selection_126.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprri/selection_126.jpg)

Clicking "Continue" I received this modal, with 3 datapoints that are used.

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrw/selection_127.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprrw/selection_127.jpg)

Obviously, Facebook processes more data than these three. It has never really
been a dating app and that is definitely not one of their main focuses.

Anyway, I went on to remove my "Interested in" datapoint. Prompting an "are
you sure" modal:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdr/selection_128.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdr/selection_128.jpg)

After clicking remove this single datapoint was removed:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprda/selection_129.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprda/selection_129.jpg)

I expected this flow to continue, but looks like that was it. I decided to
stop here and not "Accept with changes". There was NO chance to opt-out of the
facial recognition program:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdl/selection_130.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcprdl/selection_130.jpg)

They're obviously trying to go with "these three groups of data are protected
and need opt-in". The rest, yeah - we need that to provide the service.

I also have another tab open, that works, so I'm not really blocked from using
the site. At-least for now.

Edit: opening Facebook in new tabs, no longer starts this modal, even though I
haven't accepted the new changes.

\---------------------------------------------------------

Edit 2: Went looking, and googling, trying to opt-out of the facial
recognition program.

Here are the options I have under Privacy:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapr/selection_131.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapr/selection_131.jpg)

Here are the options I have under "Your Facebook information":

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapa/selection_132.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapa/selection_132.jpg)

Clicking "view" under Managing your information I get this very (un)helpful
help page:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapl/selection_133.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapl/selection_133.jpg)

Choosing Facebook I get these options:

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapi/selection_134.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcpapi/selection_134.jpg)

Choosing "Change my face recognition settings", the send button is still
disabled, but I get this very helpful link to "also edit your face recognition
settings", the link points to
"[https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=facerec"](https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=facerec"),
but actually takes me back to my "General Account Settings":

[https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcporl/selection_136.jpg](https://img3.picload.org/image/dogcporl/selection_136.jpg)

As far as I can understand, there is no way to change face recognition
settings in the flow I received from the A/B testing gods. Might have
something to do with me not agreeing to the changes in the first modal.

------
portaljacker
In Europe after all the stuff they just went through implementing the new
privacy stuff for them? Someone must have missed the memo.

~~~
bronson
Facebook is very good at missing memos. It makes them quite a bit of money.

~~~
DesiLurker
am I the only one who is cynical enough to think that they might be doing the
face recognition already for a while. its that with GDPR they may have to
disclose it so they are making a pretext that we just enabled it please feel
free to opt out now that we have trained our models anyways.

------
wodenokoto
I had a huge in-you-face, fixed notification in messenger telling me about new
terms, and it asked me about face recognition and I had to answer if they were
allowed to look for my face, with no default answer chosen.

This did not feel like they were trying to trick me into anything.

------
toephu2
Who will be auditing Facebook to ensure they actually comply with GDPR?

E.g., I live in the EU and send over a delete request. How do I ensure my
account's data was actually deleted? Am I supposed to just trust Facebook?

~~~
PunchTornado
yes. how would you enforce that? fb can keep your data in a server in hawaii
that nobody knows about.

------
908087
I sincerely hope Facebook continues making stupid moves like this, because
they've spent over a decade earning the right to be the first company to be
"made an example of" via the GDPR. It would be a shame to see their years of
effort go to waste.

~~~
binarymax
It would not surprise me in the least if Facebook was the primary example used
by GDPR creators while crafting the regulation.

------
fairpx
“In general” this would be something Zuck’s team can look at.

------
return1
Have we reached peak facebook yet? Is there a name for these serial outrages
that pop up every 2 months? I get it, it's good clickbait but does it need to
follow us here in HN?

~~~
KasianFranks
facebook is the next AOL, geocities, friendster, myspace etc. You never hear
anyone saying I'm going to cancel my 'Search' account. The kinds of things you
are seeing now happen with 'social media', not algorithmic search companies.

~~~
return1
i m referring to outrages. before facebook it was net neutrality, before that,
something i dont remember. it has become a media pattern.

~~~
pdkl95
_Good_. That's generally the only way the general public can counteract the
abusive behavior of entrenched and powerful organizations.

A common tactic used by large businesses is to _stay silent_ and ignore public
outrage, because the public usually doesn't have the time, money, or energy to
_maintain_ the pressure of the public voice against a single target. By
ignoring the outrage most of the time the public moves on to the next scandal
and the original abusive behavior can continue unchallenged as the "new
normal".

If you're seeing a pattern of outrage, that's a sign that people are _very_
angry and might - if luck is on their side - actually force one change in the
public interest.

For a longer explanation of this topic, I recommend Jim Sterling:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6lvDL4cNdM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6lvDL4cNdM)
(strong language)

------
mirko22
Why is it ok to be filmed and face recognized by surveillance cameras on train
station but it is wrong when Facebook does it?

In my opinion I don’t need to use facebook and give them my data voluntarily
but I kinda need to use the train and nobody is asking me for right to do face
recognition.

~~~
slenk
Who said it was OK to be face-recognized at train-stations? I don't think that
is/should be right either

~~~
mirko22
Germany did yet you don’t see people making a fuss about it. As much as I hate
Facebook I think a lot of people just complain about it cos it so high
profile. But if you don’t care about privacy everywhere, what does make
Facebook special case?

~~~
gmueckl
People certainly made a fuss about the face recognition trial in the train
station.

But we Germans seem to be irrationally against data collection by companies
compared to government data collection. Google street view was another case
that made this apparent.

~~~
mirko22
Exactly my point, personally i am much more worried about government
surveillance, my point was that facebook is an optional thing and very little
people really need it (places where facebook is internet) as compared to real
environment around you in which you live.

And to me that is really surprising, GDPR allow government almost free hands
when it comes to data collection, which for me is the scary part.

i might be going around this the long way but english is not my strong side.

~~~
gmueckl
The requirement to use facebook is not a legal one, but a social one defined
by friends and family members who insist on using it (a.k.a. the networking
effect).

In theory, governments can define and implement draconian checks on how
collected data is processed by itself. People seem to trust that theoretical
ability more than companies claiming to implement rigorous standards, but can
do so without direct outside oversight or control. This is independent of
whether it is actually true.

------
rb808
FindFace in Russia had a feature where you could take a photo of anyone and it
would look up their VKontakte profile. Would be _nice_ if Facebook did this.
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3595026/The-e...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3595026/The-
end-anonymity-know-App-allows-people-S-social-media-profile-just-taking-
photo.html)

[https://findface.ru](https://findface.ru)

------
doubtfuluser
Ok, so I now have the following question: what if I’m evil (that kind of evil
person none can imagine would exist on Facebook), and I impersonate for
example someone else - like my ex for example. Will I get notified about every
photo they upload of „me“? Isn’t this decision going to be a total privacy
clusterf __* even beyond what is currently imagined? Or won’t they show me
pictures of „me“ that were uploaded privately by others at all - then this
feature doesn’t make sense. Please help me understand

