How retarded do you have to be to publicly post videos and then think get mad when people watch them.
Mildly.
I very briefly knew a woman who added her manager and franchise owner to Facebook and then started shit talking the place. She didn't understand why her shifts got cut to basically nothing after writing multiple posts about how much she hates it and how stupid the franchise owner was.
Some people think that social media doesn't matter and that they can't get punished for it.
Or just don't add bosses to Facebook. If you have to then just don't post anything about work. It's not rocket science but some people just don't get it.
Some /r/drama mod once banned me for doxxing, because i posted a blog video of a girl who was blogging about her breast reduction, even though she herself put the video up for the whole world to see.
A lot of people are unaware of how the rules work in this regard.
Consent is pretty irrelevant when you're walking around a public area and people always forget that. You're recorded dozens to hundreds of times when you go out in public, and as long as it's in a public space there really isn't anything you can do about that.
Okay, that just tells me you can oppose to have your picture USED and SPREAD, not that it's illegal to take them. Also gives the family of a recently deceased person the right to oppose usage and you have to make minors unidentifiable.
I work for a company that does facial recognition software for security cameras. Not only are you being videoed out in public, you're being tracked, counted, and in commercial areas your age/gender/mood are all being estimated for demographic estimates. This isn't even a secret anymore, techs been around for a couple years.
If I'm walking around in public, that does not imply consent for people to take my photo or record video of me.
Yes it does you absolute fucking moron. Although given the caliber of 'people' that hang out on Ghazi, I doubt anyone would want to take your picture anyway.
And it's not just in the USA. Even in France (and most of Europe) where we have stronger laws protecting privacy than in the USA, their use of those videos (and pictures of people taken in the streets) is totally legit.
The only limitation would be, if those pictures were to be published in something for profit, they might have to blur people's faces, or get them to waive their rights.
Exactly this. If they didn't do this then trans people would be excluded, in their make believe world they think trans people should be paid in order to have good things done for them. Just the most asinine level of entitlement.
It's not murky at all. If you upload a publicly visible video to a privately owned site without fully understanding the user agreement or what fair use is, that's your problem and not theirs.
Fair Use/Fair Dealing isn't what you think it is, and barring a specific agreement in the EULA for people unaffiliated with the service to whqtever they want with your copyrighted material (which I'm reasonably sure doesn't exist), the EULA doesnt matter either.
You literally don't. I actually bothered to go check - you licence it to them, and that licence confers certain sublicencing rights. Content creators explicitly still own their content.
What that means is that if and only if Youtube or the content creator explicitly provided a licence to the authors of the paper, which I assume is not the case, they had legal permission to use the content. Since they almost certainly did not have that permission, were they to find themselves in court they would need to use the affirmative defense of Fair Use, and then it is up to the judge to decide, based on arguments presented, whether or not it applies.
Yes. Trannies usually make jokes like "well why don't you DNA test every partner then?" when you tell them you don't want to have sex with trannies, and trannies should disclose.
Now I hope in a few months I'll have an app where I point my camera at a potential partner (pretending to take a picture) and it tells me if it's a tranny.
If you are a Scientist, and you work for a University, or other reputable institution, any study you do that includes personal data, even data that is publicly available, must be evaluated by IRB. You must, generally, show IRB how you plan to protect that data and what you plan to do with it. Where you will store it and by what means it will be protected. I know for a fact this includes data gathered from Youtube, Tumblr, Reddit, etc.
However, if you work a disreputable organization, which includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. You will routinely violate basic research guidelines... because you can...
So while, 'walking around in public,' allows other people to take your picture, it does not allow reputable scientists to create data from it, any scientist that does this without approval could, at some point, be subject to professional sanction...
IRL this means nothing. Private companies are regularly violating research norms including this one. Lots of data gathering is done by untrained 'computer scientists' who think they can do whatever they want with everything on the web.
So while, 'walking around in public,' allows other people to take your picture, it does not allow reputable scientists to create data from it,
... without approval from the IRB. And I believe that there are categories of public information which do not require consent or participation. Published video and images might qualify for that, as long as PII is scrubbed from it.
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, publish, adapt, make available online or electronically transmit, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display, publish, make available online or electronically transmit, and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service.
fuck collection of data on people without their express consent
They consented when they publicly shared the video
fuck the person/people who specifically targeted trans people with facial recognition.
Lol this isn't targeting trans people, it's targeting people who make changes to their face. Trans people just tend to put up some nice before, during and afters which makes their videos great training data.
Facial recognition software is already a massive enabler of mass surveillance, but this can specifically be used to gather information on trans people when we're already targeted enough
Oh fuck off, facial recognition is bad for everyone it's not magically worse for trans people
Training a machine to automatically detect trans people is fucking disgusting.
I'm 99% sure they didn't (Or i missed it)
u/shahryarrakeen
Experiments require informed consent
Well good thing this is neither an experiment and that everyone consented.
Unfortunately, this probably showed up on a EULA that waives that away.
Yea the part that lets youtube show the public videos you uploaded for the public.
u/LilyPeet
If I'm walking around in public, that does not imply consent for people to take my photo or record video of me
The laws in all of Canada, All of America (Minus the few states that allow certain places to ban it) and much of the EU disagree with you. So you're wrong and don't understand what legal consent is.
Businesses that have security cameras are required by law to make it known that they have them
1) Not in all countries
2) Can you point out that law?
The internet is no different.
You're right. Things posted in public can be used by the public as they see fit (Operating inside the law of course.)
The internet is no different.
Yea, but you have consented for them to viewed and downloaded by the public
At the very least this kind of thing should be grounds for a copyright suit.
Training a machine to automatically detect trans people is fucking disgusting.
I'm 99% sure they didn't (Or i missed it)
Yup that's nowhere in the article. It's all about an AI that can identify the same person despite hormonal changes, disguises, and so on.
I'm not saying a tranny detector couldn't be built, but it's not the point of their work. And it's not a direct application of it either. The only way to "detect" trans people with such an AI (if it was perfect) would be to match "girl" and "boy" mode pictures of the same individual.
Meaning they'd both have to be floating around. Also it's face recognition on the world wide web : there has a to be a way bigger error probability than doing it on training sets to prove a point in an academic setting.
It's like those walls of text people used to post on their facebook walls to "legally" protect themselves from having their data exploited. Except there's a voice screaming it in /u/LilyPeet's head. It has as much legal value though.
Can we stop with this? I don't care how public it was, using that shit to collect data on a person, especially when it's likely that your government is likely to be hostile to that person, is wrong. Especially when it's likely they were just voicing their opinions on a subject.
This is authoritarian.
Right. When scientists look at publicly posted information and do science with it, that somehow connects to what the government thinks of the person who freely posted that information, and proves that said government intends to control every aspect of everyone's life.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's just the same bullshit "Waa, I don't want the internet to have this thing I put on the internet!" You realize everyone can access the internet, right?
96 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-23
Promoting anarchofascism for 5 years and counting.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 0987654231 2017-08-23
How retarded do you have to be to publicly post videos and then think get mad when people watch them.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
Apparently about as much as you need to become a tranny in the first place.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
Mildly.
I very briefly knew a woman who added her manager and franchise owner to Facebook and then started shit talking the place. She didn't understand why her shifts got cut to basically nothing after writing multiple posts about how much she hates it and how stupid the franchise owner was.
Some people think that social media doesn't matter and that they can't get punished for it.
1 LedinToke 2017-08-23
that's why signing up for stuff with your real info is dumb tbh
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
Or just don't add bosses to Facebook. If you have to then just don't post anything about work. It's not rocket science but some people just don't get it.
1 heavenlytoaster 2017-08-23
Pretty sure FB even let you privacy quarantine specific people anyway...
1 pointmanzero 2017-08-23
we already know about your gay boy magazine subscription
1 LedinToke 2017-08-23
no you don't stfu
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-08-23
Some /r/drama mod once banned me for doxxing, because i posted a blog video of a girl who was blogging about her breast reduction, even though she herself put the video up for the whole world to see.
A lot of people are unaware of how the rules work in this regard.
1 subpoutine 2017-08-23
She may have also been a little young, but why exactly that was an issue was never really explained. I think the mods are pedos tbqh. 😪
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-08-23
She was 16/17 or something, but it wasn't pornographic or anything, so i don't see the issue.
1 subpoutine 2017-08-23
Hmm, I'd have to look at it again to get a proper measure.
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-08-23
Well here it is.
And if anyone wants to ban me for this, we even had an admin look at it and he confirmed it wasn't doxxing and nothing illegal about it.
it's just some girl documenting how she feels about her surgery.
1 Orsonius 2017-08-23
Look at me, I don't understand the law.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
It's ghazi... they often confuse their feelings and the law.
1 mast_flag 2017-08-23
Imagine being one of the 4 dead men in Benghazi then a bunch of mentally ill queers use the event as a term to describe their hurt feelings.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
Consent is pretty irrelevant when you're walking around a public area and people always forget that. You're recorded dozens to hundreds of times when you go out in public, and as long as it's in a public space there really isn't anything you can do about that.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
You can go "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" until people stop filming you (but it's more likely to get more people to film you though).
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
Those people are my favorite ones on /r/PublicFreakout. Especially when they start screaming at cops to make the other person stop recording.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-23
Why is this sub full of rapists?
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
Because you wear revealing clothing. It's your fault really.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-23
That's what the neighborhood rapist said when I was five :(
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
I guess you're a slow learner then bby
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-23
That's what the learning specialist said when I was five :(
It wasn't a very good year.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2017-08-23
I could spend each day responding to Facebook posts about this shit (among other things). It follows a common pattern:
$people_I_don't_like are doing $something == ($illegal || $bad) because $feelings
and the response would generally go:
$something is perfectly legal because ($case_law || $SCOTUS || $statute)
and then their response:
$horseshit ++ $rage ++ $nazi_accusations
fuckin libtards man. I'm one of them but sweet baby jesus they're getting as bad as flat earthers these days.
1 -VladimirPutin- 2017-08-23
The highly polarised political climate in the US is to be blamed for this.
1 All_of_Midas_Silver 2017-08-23
I blame white people
1 backltrack 2017-08-23
Why are you using the increment operator?
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2017-08-23
because i wasn't paying attention and haven't been an actual developer in about a decade? project management man, rots your brain
1 backltrack 2017-08-23
I feel you. Development also rots the brain.
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2017-08-23
yeah most of my job is actually partner management these days, so it's kinda like coming here, except without the wacky, family-friendly atmosphere
1 backltrack 2017-08-23
Who would have guessed drama users weren't ALL neets
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2017-08-23
I've even had SEX before!
with a GIRL!!!!1111
(and not a single feminine penis in sight!)
1 FedaykinShallowGrave 2017-08-23
It's concatenation in some languages.
1 zahlman 2017-08-23
In Haskell, it's the list concatenation operator.
1 backltrack 2017-08-23
But do people actually use Haskell or just blog about it.
1 michgot 2017-08-23
Blog about Haskell, code in COBOL.
1 backltrack 2017-08-23
COBOL but with lambdas
1 Blackliquid 2017-08-23
In a lot of european countries it is actually illegal to take a picture of someone in public without their consent
1 SuperiorExcess 2017-08-23
You got that backwards dumbass. It's totally legal in public spaces.
1 Blackliquid 2017-08-23
It is absolutely illegal to take a picture of someone without their consent in France for example. Just Google "droit à l'image".
1 SuperiorExcess 2017-08-23
Okay, that just tells me you can oppose to have your picture USED and SPREAD, not that it's illegal to take them. Also gives the family of a recently deceased person the right to oppose usage and you have to make minors unidentifiable.
1 miraclebelly 2017-08-23
I work for a company that does facial recognition software for security cameras. Not only are you being videoed out in public, you're being tracked, counted, and in commercial areas your age/gender/mood are all being estimated for demographic estimates. This isn't even a secret anymore, techs been around for a couple years.
1 zahlman 2017-08-23
/u/LilyPeet
1 Thulean-Dragon 2017-08-23
/u/LilyPeet
Yes it does you absolute fucking moron. Although given the caliber of 'people' that hang out on Ghazi, I doubt anyone would want to take your picture anyway.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
And it's not just in the USA. Even in France (and most of Europe) where we have stronger laws protecting privacy than in the USA, their use of those videos (and pictures of people taken in the streets) is totally legit.
The only limitation would be, if those pictures were to be published in something for profit, they might have to blur people's faces, or get them to waive their rights.
1 Michelanvalo 2017-08-23
There's no one above a 1 in that picture
1 LSU_Coonass 2017-08-23
idk if its cheerleader effect but green pants is a solid 2 imo
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-23
Wonder if she applies that standard to the Charlottesville nazis too.
1 l34512 2017-08-23
What the fuck is wrong with South Korea. Chemical castration for pictures in public?
1 pointmanzero 2017-08-23
Not a single video game in sight.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2017-08-23
REEEEE
REEEEE
There's no winning.
1 wisty 2017-08-23
Everything is evidence of oppression.
It must be evidence for oppression, because everything is oppressive. And everything is oppressive because that's what the evidence tells them.
REEEEEEEE
1 aqouta 2017-08-23
Exactly this. If they didn't do this then trans people would be excluded, in their make believe world they think trans people should be paid in order to have good things done for them. Just the most asinine level of entitlement.
1 marmott-e 2017-08-23
The only winning move is to post bussy
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
/u/MooseAtTheKeys
It's not murky at all. If you upload a publicly visible video to a privately owned site without fully understanding the user agreement or what fair use is, that's your problem and not theirs.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
But what if I feel the law should be different? Surely a court would take it into consideration.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
Ah yes the "I know I drank 6 beers and blew a 0.15 officer but I don't feel drunk so I shouldn't get a DUI" defense.
Hasn't worked yet but there's a first time for everything.
1 marmott-e 2017-08-23
"Sorry officer but It felt like she was enjoying it. Checkmate pig !"
1 MooseAtTheKeys 2017-08-23
Fair Use/Fair Dealing isn't what you think it is, and barring a specific agreement in the EULA for people unaffiliated with the service to whqtever they want with your copyrighted material (which I'm reasonably sure doesn't exist), the EULA doesnt matter either.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-08-23
You literally give up your right to those photos/videos when you upload them. If YouTube is cool with it then too fucking bad for you.
1 MooseAtTheKeys 2017-08-23
You literally don't. I actually bothered to go check - you licence it to them, and that licence confers certain sublicencing rights. Content creators explicitly still own their content.
What that means is that if and only if Youtube or the content creator explicitly provided a licence to the authors of the paper, which I assume is not the case, they had legal permission to use the content. Since they almost certainly did not have that permission, were they to find themselves in court they would need to use the affirmative defense of Fair Use, and then it is up to the judge to decide, based on arguments presented, whether or not it applies.
1 Oh_hamburgers_ 2017-08-23
TFW you're an experiment.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
Trannies complaining about weird science experiments...
1 TSwizzlesNipples 2017-08-23
Great, now I have "You're Pretty When I'm Drunk" stuck in my head.
1 AlphabetMachinery 2017-08-23
Thank you, Science!
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
Yes. Trannies usually make jokes like "well why don't you DNA test every partner then?" when you tell them you don't want to have sex with trannies, and trannies should disclose.
Now I hope in a few months I'll have an app where I point my camera at a potential partner (pretending to take a picture) and it tells me if it's a tranny.
1 aonome 2017-08-23
Why am I not surprised that Ghazi doesn't understand copyright law?
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
They tried opening a lawbook, but it all sounded like mansplaining.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-08-23
Lmao
1 Ennui2778 2017-08-23
I think you're giving them a bit too much credit, my guy.
1 Vakieh 2017-08-23
The lawbook was a pamphlet in the therapist's office.
1 enderhart 2017-08-23
I don't need a machine to tell me that /u/ellenok has a man face.
1 MelungeonQueen 2017-08-23
/u/ellenok needs to take at least 3 times as much hormones if xhe wants to pass
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-23
I heard the hormones kick in faster if you smoke them.
1 do0rkn0b 2017-08-23
If everyone is against you, you'd better keep yourself safe.
1 battles 2017-08-23
If you are a Scientist, and you work for a University, or other reputable institution, any study you do that includes personal data, even data that is publicly available, must be evaluated by IRB. You must, generally, show IRB how you plan to protect that data and what you plan to do with it. Where you will store it and by what means it will be protected. I know for a fact this includes data gathered from Youtube, Tumblr, Reddit, etc.
However, if you work a disreputable organization, which includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. You will routinely violate basic research guidelines... because you can...
So while, 'walking around in public,' allows other people to take your picture, it does not allow reputable scientists to create data from it, any scientist that does this without approval could, at some point, be subject to professional sanction...
IRL this means nothing. Private companies are regularly violating research norms including this one. Lots of data gathering is done by untrained 'computer scientists' who think they can do whatever they want with everything on the web.
1 Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-08-23
... without approval from the IRB. And I believe that there are categories of public information which do not require consent or participation. Published video and images might qualify for that, as long as PII is scrubbed from it.
1 battles 2017-08-23
Consent and participation aren't necessary, but pictures of people's faces are definitely personal information, by my interpretation.
1 Tony_AbbottPBUH 2017-08-23
/u/LilyPeet
Youtube TOS section 6C
dont be such a fuckin idiot
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
That's ableist. /u/LilyPeet can't read, so as far as he/she/it is concerned, every rule should be modified to adapt to what he/she/it thinks.
1 ineedmorealts 2017-08-23
u/ellenok
Hey someone on Ghazi said something not stupid!
They consented when they publicly shared the video
Lol this isn't targeting trans people, it's targeting people who make changes to their face. Trans people just tend to put up some nice before, during and afters which makes their videos great training data.
Oh fuck off, facial recognition is bad for everyone it's not magically worse for trans people
I'm 99% sure they didn't (Or i missed it)
u/shahryarrakeen
Well good thing this is neither an experiment and that everyone consented.
Yea the part that lets youtube show the public videos you uploaded for the public.
u/LilyPeet
The laws in all of Canada, All of America (Minus the few states that allow certain places to ban it) and much of the EU disagree with you. So you're wrong and don't understand what legal consent is.
1) Not in all countries
2) Can you point out that law?
You're right. Things posted in public can be used by the public as they see fit (Operating inside the law of course.)
Yea, but you have consented for them to viewed and downloaded by the public
Lel how has you copyright been violated?
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
Yup that's nowhere in the article. It's all about an AI that can identify the same person despite hormonal changes, disguises, and so on.
I'm not saying a tranny detector couldn't be built, but it's not the point of their work. And it's not a direct application of it either. The only way to "detect" trans people with such an AI (if it was perfect) would be to match "girl" and "boy" mode pictures of the same individual.
Meaning they'd both have to be floating around. Also it's face recognition on the world wide web : there has a to be a way bigger error probability than doing it on training sets to prove a point in an academic setting.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-23
After I die, I want to reincarnate as a Zyklon B elemental.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
That's a noble goal.
1 KingNothing305 2017-08-23
YouTube and Facebook has made a generation of retards that don't understand what privacy means
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-08-23
The wonders of being killed by what comforts you.
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-08-23
You can't copyright your genes that's already public domain.
Panorama laws are pretty much de facto and while there is a lot of bad, there's a lot of good too.
I get it. This is creepy. But its not illegal. Instead of complaining make a phone call about it and tell your representatives.
1 godofdae 2017-08-23
This will be a great tool to find the Discord rooms they ERP in.
1 pointmanzero 2017-08-23
That subreddit makes a SHIT TON MORE SENSE when you realize it is just a crab bucket of un-passable trannies that can't get laid.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
They shouldn't fear AI, they should fear people who aren't blind and retarded.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-23
Holy hell that is some ignorant paranoia. They actually think this is all about inventing a transperson-detecting-algorithm.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
Don't you know that in 2017 everything is about them?
1 doughboy011 2017-08-23
It does tho
u/LilyPeet
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
It's like those walls of text people used to post on their facebook walls to "legally" protect themselves from having their data exploited. Except there's a voice screaming it in /u/LilyPeet's head. It has as much legal value though.
1 zahlman 2017-08-23
/u/racecarlock
Right. When scientists look at publicly posted information and do science with it, that somehow connects to what the government thinks of the person who freely posted that information, and proves that said government intends to control every aspect of everyone's life.
Because reasons.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
You mean youtube isn't a super secure private video storage service? BRB gotta scrub my video diary of any admission of a felony.
1 Your_Hatred_Sustains 2017-08-23
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's just the same bullshit "Waa, I don't want the internet to have this thing I put on the internet!" You realize everyone can access the internet, right?
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-08-23
Ghazi didn't until now, apparently.