[HN Gopher] They See Your Photos
___________________________________________________________________
They See Your Photos
Author : vladyslavfox
Score : 69 points
Date : 2024-12-14 21:09 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theyseeyourphotos.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theyseeyourphotos.com)
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Imagine how much Meta has on your overall profile from your fb
| photo uploads.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Plus who you write on Whatsapp, plus what you like on
| Instagram, plus what ads you see online, what ads you click
| through on, etc.
| globular-toast wrote:
| > your fb photo uploads
|
| Don't forget other people's uploads. You don't have to use
| facebook to be on there. At one time _not_ using it probably
| only served to make you more interesting to the system.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| EXIF tags in images can have your camera and GPS info.
|
| You can clear EXIF tags before sharing files.
|
| Most social networks will remove EXIF tags from pictures before
| serving them to other people. Except silly social networks used
| by insurrectionists.
|
| But even without the EXIF tags there's plenty of info that can be
| extracted from a picture. Face biometrics is one of them.
| gmuslera wrote:
| I suppose that this xkcd (https://xkcd.com/1425/) is relevant
| enough, just that we already took those 5+ years of research to
| be able to tell what is in the photo.
| genezeta wrote:
| So, I just click the example pic with a guy and two kids, one on
| his shoulders, and it describes saying it "shows a detailed
| close-up view of a textured surface, possibly a fabric or
| wallpaper". And then it goes on to say that the "photograph
| itself seems to be devoid of any human presence, focusing
| entirely on the abstract design."
|
| I click another one with a family on a field. It says mostly the
| same as before.
|
| EDIT: Oh, wait a minute! I had Resist Fingerprinting activated.
| So they're probably just reading the image through a <canvas> and
| getting shit from that.
|
| In any case it's interesting to know that it works as a way to
| block _some_ of it. But Google & co. just run it on their
| servers so...
| runningmike wrote:
| Using a Google api reveals much more....
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| What are some examples?
| geor9e wrote:
| than?
|
| "In this experiment, we use Google Vision API to extract the
| story behind a single photo."
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| As much as I appreciate the effort to create a technological
| solution that avoids big tech like Google, I find the best way is
| still prints. I'm usually 'the photographer' in the family and
| after an event I just order prints to the house of the relevant
| family members (or bring them over myself). Nothing can really
| compare to holding the physical product in your hand.
|
| Additionally, due to the small cost of prints, there's a real
| incentive to only show a few of the best so that it doesn't
| devolve into endless scrolling.
| autoexec wrote:
| Have you checked the privacy policy of your photo lab/printer?
| It's possible that they're collecting digital copies of your
| pictures, selling them (or just information about them) to
| third parties, as well as selling them/turning them over to the
| police and other government agencies.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| Which ones do those things?
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| All of them. At the very least its worth hoarding until an
| opportunity comes up.
| buildbot wrote:
| Are you suggesting that all photo printing labs secretly
| keep copies of their clients photos (including
| professional photographers selling prints worth
| thousands) and reselling them as their own? I don't think
| that any website terms are going to make that okay?
|
| I understand this in how Instagram and Facebook terms
| read, that they can sublicense your images, and I'm not a
| lawyer, but sublicense doesn't mean resell as their own?
| It's still your copyright.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Yes, I do. I read the privacy policy of all the websites I
| sign up for. In fact, that is the exact reason why I never
| got a Facebook account. When I read their privacy policy when
| it first came out when I was an undergraduate student, I was
| horrified and never signed up.
|
| Of course, that doesn't guarantee everything in this
| deceptive world, but it's the best I can do certainly.
| CaptRon wrote:
| Making prints easily available could be a good business idea
| for a photo storage app
| jorts wrote:
| Who do you use for printing?
| BadHumans wrote:
| I uploaded an old image of a keyboard PCB from when I was
| troubleshooting it and it gave a very detailed response including
| naming the keyboard the PCB comes from, the time of day the photo
| was likely taken, and where the photo was likely taken.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _... the time of day the photo was likely taken, and where
| the photo was likely taken._
|
| Possibly from the image file's Exif data:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif#Geolocation
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Yeah. I have to scrub every photo before I'll upload it. Even
| the 'remove properties' option in Windows can do some good.
| autoexec wrote:
| These are the obvious things they can see in the photos. Not
| shown are the various assumptions they'll make about you based on
| your photos such as: gay, likely uneducated, high income earner,
| most likely republican, narcissistic, etc.
|
| Also not shown is what they'll learn by the totality of the data
| they collect from your pictures such as how often you go on
| vacation, how often you're seen in new clothing and what kinds of
| clothes you typically wear, your health, what types of foods you
| eat, social graphs of everyone you're seen with and changes to
| your relationship status over time, how often you consume
| drugs/alcohol, your general level of cleanliness and personal
| hygiene, etc.
|
| Even a handful of photos can give companies like Google, Apple,
| and Amazon massive amounts of very personal data but nobody
| thinks about that when they pull out their phones to take
| pictures or install a ring camera on their front door.
| BadHumans wrote:
| For most people, it is too taxing to be on guard 24/7 and they
| have other things going on in their life that are more pressing
| like paying rent. I don't blame people for not thinking twice
| about that Ring camera because unlike most open-source
| solutions, "it just works."
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| That's why it would be nice for democracy to work and give us
| some enforced regulations
| BadHumans wrote:
| I agree fully but I'm going to play devil's advocate and
| say the person who just won the election won the popular
| vote so whatever you are about to get is democracy in
| action because the majority of people voted for what is
| about to happen.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| No it isn't. A democracy only works with informed voters.
| The amount of lies and obfuscation spewed by Trump's
| campaign is a successful attempt to deliberately break
| democracy. They don't have a mandate to do much besides
| mass deportation because they didn't talk about firing
| the entire federal workforce during the campaign. Project
| 2025 does talk about that but Trump lied during the
| campaign and said he disavowed it.
|
| I think oligarch Peter Thiel gave away the game in this
| clip at 3:26 where he says "you can make pro Trump
| arguments but that's the democratic question"
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luTHVKFi3dc&t=3m24s
| voisin wrote:
| Woah woah woah, let's not get hasty here. Can't we think of
| the shareholders for once?
| internetter wrote:
| > Not shown are the various assumptions they'll make about you
| based on your photos such as: gay, likely uneducated, high
| income earner, most likely republican, narcissistic, etc.
|
| I uploaded a photo of myself as a child and based on the house
| in the background, the brand of shoes on my feet, and the
| clothes my dad was wearing, it flagged me as "middle class", so
| at least one part of your claim is incorrect. I suspect this
| may be the same model google used internally
| JimDabell wrote:
| I uploaded a race photo and it said that I appeared
| economically comfortable because I was wearing running gear
| like a hydration pack.
| internetter wrote:
| Well, are you?
| nostrademons wrote:
| Do you do any ML for Big Tech? Because it's actually a lot
| simpler than that: the input is the sum total of your activity,
| and the output is the likelihood that you'll click on an ad or
| buy a product on a specific surface. You certainly _can_
| predict demographic information like sexual orientation,
| education level, income, political party, and with a fair
| degree of accuracy, but all it does is add noise to the
| calculation you really want, which is optimizing the amount of
| money you 'll make. To the extent that demographics are
| computed, it's to make advertisers feel better about
| themselves. They would almost always be better off with a
| blanket "optimize my sales" campaign, but it's hard for ad
| agencies and digital marketers to justify their existence that
| way.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Delay between uploading and response led to me uploading the pic
| 3 times.
|
| The result: The AI analyzed the pic 3 times and each time added
| more detail - like the model of the burned out SUV, text on a
| traffic sign and more in-depth analysis of objects laying around
| the SUV.
|
| A forth upload yielded some pure conjecture; it seemed to be
| looking for increasingly sinister causes. There
| appears to be some damage to the windows of the car that is more
| than just fire damage suggesting that the vehicle may have been
| vandalized or attacked before the fire occurred. The debris
| scattered around the car is inconsistent, suggesting a
| possibility that the fire was not accidental.
| Hizonner wrote:
| It'd be more terrifying if it didn't hallucinate earrings on
| somebody whose ears are _out of frame_ , make comments about the
| left shoe of a _barefoot child_ being out of focus, and so
| forth...
| Muromec wrote:
| It is terrifying exqctly because it does hallucinate
| IshKebab wrote:
| This is just an ad for their photo service. Which presumably has
| terrible search features, if it doesn't use AI to analyse them.
| That's one of the best features in Google Photos!
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| It is a weird advertisement when Ente (the name of the service)
| will also see your photos.
| philips wrote:
| The service is end to end encrypted with local AI for
| indexing.
|
| I tried it a few months ago however and the upload/encryption
| was so slow from their desktop app it would have taken weeks
| to migrate my photos to the service.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Terrible search without AI is a bit of a stretch. Also Google
| does not have a monopoly on object recognition in photos. There
| are self-hosted solutions that readily provide you with that
| without feeding a faceless AI with your photos while boiling
| the ocean.
| busymom0 wrote:
| I gave the following advice to someone I was chatting with on
| tinder:
|
| 1. Remember that when you send pics through imessage, it sends
| the exif data which includes location, date when it was taken etc
| and other info.
|
| 2. Disable Live Photos as it often captures things you may not
| want to capture few moments before and after the pic is taken.
| geor9e wrote:
| Are machine learning image classifiers new to people? I don't get
| what's controversial here. How did people think they were
| searching their photos apps for beach and dog and getting
| automatic albums this whole time. Am I missing the point of this
| post/website?
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Most people don't even know what machine learning even means or
| is.
| geor9e wrote:
| Oh wait it's an ad.
| cerved wrote:
| I know! It does AI!!
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| This is really cool. I posted a photo of what I think was my
| great grandparents into it and it explained their circumstances
| in fascinating ways (to the point of mentioning aged clothing, a
| detailed I overlooked).
|
| I've been trying to figure out how to process hundreds of my own
| scanned photos to determine any context about them. This was
| convincing enough for me to consider google's vision API. No way
| I'd ever trust OpenAI's apis for this.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| Where is the difference in trust level between google and
| openai coming from?
| duxup wrote:
| The few I tried were pretty unimpressive. It felt like elementary
| deduction with a lot of filler words and few facts... and
| straight up bad information.
| temporallobe wrote:
| I uploaded an image of a 6-panel hand-drawn cartoon I created and
| it very accurately described the scene and overall theme of the
| joke, even pointing out that it was hand-drawn, used no colors,
| and that the text in the speech bubbles was very legible. I did
| not expect that level of detail.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-14 23:00 UTC)