Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm not entirely sure what's so shocking about public data, shared willingly by the person to the public, being used to identify the person. If the data weren't/hadn't been shared willingly, I'd definitely see that as a problem. Same thing as if the data were to have been gleaned from non-public sources e.g the person's private belongings or secured digital realms like private forums, password encrypted backups, private profiles, etc.





It's about trust and permission. If I give e.g. a local news website permission to use my portrait, I do NOT implicitly give permission to Clearview, Google, Facebook, etc to use it for their own purposes.

I mean it's implicitly known that anything you post on the internet is public property, but legally that is not the case. Portrait law (at least in my country). You can't just take someone's portrait and use it for your own gains.


Are they actually using it, though? Or are they just a search engine presenting public links that are hosting the photos of your face? Is linking to something covered by GDPR?

Couldn't this same argument be made for Google reverse image search? Reverse image search someone's face and you're likely to get links to places that photo is located; potentially including links to different photos of their face, as well.

They're likely mirroring local copies of the photos as well when they show you the link (in case a link later 404s or changes), but so is Google reverse image search, I believe.

If your position is that both things are wrong, that's fine, but would Google then basically have to remove the entire feature? Or prevent searches for any photo containing any faces?


Actually you do, because scraping is considered legal in the US and your information is on a public site which makes scraping the information legal.

Legal _in the US_ is an interesting point. We often see the US trying to overreach and apply US standards when US-owned material is hosted on sites outside of the US (Richard O'Dwyer), or arguing that accessing a server in the US makes you subject to US law (Gary McKinnon). Why would similar arguments not apply here? It may be legal in the US, but that doesn't necessarily place the actions outside the jurisdiction of the other country. Naturally, _enforcement_ may be an issue, but that doesn't make it legal. At the very least, I don't see how it can be seen as OP giving permission - it's effectively another country taking that decision away from him.

Alright, I’ll go there. This is like claiming all German citizens were complicit with the Nazi movement, because it was legal.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: