| ▲ | Cider9986 11 days ago |
| You can't sign up for a Facebook account without giving a live selfie. Any image of your family you post will be scraped by Clearview AI, bypassing the restrictions that make it hard for you to create accounts, to create a worldwide facial recognition system. |
|
| ▲ | simulator5g 11 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Well yeah, Facebook has been a data harvesting scheme from the beginning. It was originally called LifeLog. It is not part of the “free” web. |
| |
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 11 days ago | parent [-] | | Indeed, well before Clearview, Facebook demonstrated they can identify faces and asked people to tag people in it, creating one of the earlier massive facial ID databases. |
|
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FB's policy on this is patchy. I've known people who have had accounts for years, who were suddenly asked to provide a selfie - often after posting political content. Their accounts were then either locked down permanently, or unlocked. I also know people who created accounts from scratch without needing a selfie while connecting exclusively through a VPN. (Only some VPNs, work apparently.) Supposedly FB uses device ID tracking, so if you're picked for selfie ID on a device and try to create an alt, you'll be selfie-ID'd again. Using a different browser on desktop solves the problem for desktop but not for mobile. And so on. Basically it's doable, sometimes. And sometimes it isn't. |
| |
| ▲ | tencentshill 11 days ago | parent [-] | | Seems fairly robust. So why is spam and misinformation so incredibly rampant still? |
|
|
| ▲ | LazyGooze 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| just use a video of a video game character and pause the video at the required face positions |
|
| ▲ | asdefghyk 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It gets worse.
Banks now require pictures of faces to fucking close the account and pull the money out. |
| |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | ATM are taking a picture when withdrawing since decades :-) | |
| ▲ | IAmGraydon 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You find it to be a negative that banks require identity verification to drain an account? Personally, I would refuse to keep my money with a bank that doesn’t do this. | | |
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The relationship was established decades ago and they accept money and direct deposit still with no KYC. But to get the money out? Oh no! We need a picture of your face!
And there’s no option for going in person. | | |
| ▲ | jpc0 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The relationship was established decades ago and they accept money and direct deposit still with no KYC. Having just gone through the annual KYC checks required by my bank/s I don't think this opinion stands universally. Can also confirm to open an account I need to provide a live selfie and verifiable government ID. | | |
| ▲ | lII1lIlI11ll 10 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Having just gone through the annual KYC checks required by my bank/s I don't think this opinion stands universally. What is the "annual KYC check"? Your bank is afraid you became someone else during the year or what? | |
| ▲ | rockskon 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Asinine requirement by whatever risk management firm they use. A selfie provides nothing in terms of lasting security while simultaneously adding permanent risk. | | |
| ▲ | roysting 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Have you ever considered that it’s a front? You may think that store that never has customers is just run incompetent business people, but in reality the real objective is not the one you believe it to be, and it’s actually great if you were to refuse understanding that. | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 11 days ago | parent [-] | | I've found that framing topics like this as primarily a pretext for different motives is a sure-fire way to be ignored by people you may want to convince. As always, the goal in convincing others is to take someone from their current understanding and bring them closer to yours. You can't get there if you don't start the topic at their current understanding of it. |
| |
| ▲ | jpc0 9 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exept they do actually do facial rec against the government database, to my knowledge anyways. This is a requirement for two different banks I have, very likely for the rest as well. Doing the live selfie route I don't need to provide tons of other documents. For banks without the live selfies I need police certified docs for ID and address. And the big thing for KYC every year is proof of current residence. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The option for going in person involves a balaclava. | |
| ▲ | ethmarks 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > they accept money and direct deposit still with no KYC. But to get the money out? Oh no! We need a picture of your face! Unauthorized deposits aren't nearly as much of a concern as unauthorized withdrawals, right? I'd imagine that there are far fewer malicious actors that try to deposit money into random bank accounts than there are ones that try to withdraw money from random bank accounts. > And there’s no option for going in person. Won't an in-person bank also take pictures of you via security cameras? I don't really understand your objection here, could you elaborate? | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A bank's security camera feed isn't likely to be sold to dozens of companies. It is all but guaranteed for Internet-based facial recognition services. Hacked facial recognition data already is reportedly being used by scammers to not only bypass bank security but also to impersonate people to target their loved ones. There is no lasting security gain by providing a selfie. There is a lasting security and privacy loss, however. | | |
| ▲ | SiempreViernes 11 days ago | parent [-] | | So that's the concern? But GDPR solved this, just don't consent to them selling your likeness for AI training purposes. | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 11 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Trusting untrustworthy companies aside, that doesn't resolve the issue of hacked facial recognition data. Even back in 2014, malware was coming out that steals facial recognition data directly from smart phones themselves. https://www.theregister.com/security/2024/02/15/stolen-ios-u... The GDPR isn't a silver bullet. Additionally - furtherance of facial recognition technology would impact travelling to foreign jurisdictions. One of the most common ways foreign travellers get flagged when travelling internationally is for social media posts made under their own name that their destination country's government may not like. Traditionally if you've kept yourself pseudo-anonymous, you've largely been safe. But if we get to a point where pseudo-anonymous accounts are associated with pictures of people's faces, it will become significantly less pleasant to travel internationally for a lot more people. | | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You have way more trust for these companies actually following laws than I do |
|
| |
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It used to be that you could expect to not have your likeness captured and transmitted to third parties for their AI model training and who knows what other nefarious purposes. It seems like all expectation of privacy and anonymity evaporated in the last 5 years. |
| |
| ▲ | GeoAtreides 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > they accept money and direct deposit still with no KYC. WHAT? No KYC? what are those banks?! I have friends in South America who would pay really good money (cash) to know |
| |
| ▲ | Cthulhu_ 11 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd consider it a negative that they trust a shitty webcam / selfie camera to cut the expenses of having an actual office with trained personnel. Who aren't flawless of course, but selfies have been easily circumvented with photos or video game cameras. Hell, at one point we had to implement age verification for a Japanese tobacco product website via a 3rd party vendor, I just used the wiki page's picture of a Japanese ID to test it, worked fine. | | |
| ▲ | megous 11 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, it's ridiculous in an age where you can have backgrounds replaced on the fly in video calls. |
| |
| ▲ | iririririr 11 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | most banks using faceid won't accept you go to a branch. because they contract with a provider who makes more money from building and selling a database than to fulfilling the contract with the banks. | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 11 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you have proof of this? This comes off as conjecture. | | |
| ▲ | iririririr 11 days ago | parent [-] | | ask you ai chatbot or do 5second google search. all banks contract with fly-by-night faceid providers who have zero oversight or provide no governance info anywhere. | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 11 days ago | parent [-] | | I did Google this. It seems to be a small number of banks doing this right now. A far cry from "all banks". Maybe we'll get there eventually? But you should be more wary about making such absolute claims. | | |
| ▲ | iririririr 8 days ago | parent [-] | | "all banks doing faceid", which yes, is a small number in usa, but almost all banks in Latin America and Asia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
