Topic: Facebook question (Read 11840 times)

PeterAit · « **on:** March 09, 2015, 10:35:22 am »

This one has me stumped and I am hoping someone here can tell me how it happened. It's not a problem, just something that I cannot figure out.

1) My wife posted a photo that included both of us on her timeline. I was not tagged in the photo.
2) I wanted to post the same photo on my timeline, but for various reasons I did not want to simply share her post. So, I did a screen capture of her photo, saved it to disk, and uploaded it to my timeline as usual.
3) Facebook displays the photo on my timeline with the notation "- With (wife's name)"

So my question is - how did FB know that this photo was somehow connected to my wife? It's sort of spooky!

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2015, 11:40:19 am »

Big Brother is watching everything you do at your keyboard!

Justinr · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:20:17 pm »

Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 10:35:22 am

This one has me stumped and I am hoping someone here can tell me how it happened. It's not a problem, just something that I cannot figure out.

1) My wife posted a photo that included both of us on her timeline. I was not tagged in the photo.
2) I wanted to post the same photo on my timeline, but for various reasons I did not want to simply share her post. So, I did a screen capture of her photo, saved it to disk, and uploaded it to my timeline as usual.
3) Facebook displays the photo on my timeline with the notation "- With (wife's name)"

So my question is - how did FB know that this photo was somehow connected to my wife? It's sort of spooky!

Which is why I have as little to do with FB as possible.

Manoli · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:41:52 pm »

Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 10:35:22 am

So my question is - how did FB know that this photo was somehow connected to my wife? It's sort of spooky!

At some point FB, or rather someone on FB, tags a photo of your wife with her name.
You come along, post a photo of someone who is now 'tagged' in the FB database, and, thanks to face recognition, FB automatically tags the photo accordingly.
Bleedin' marvellous - at least I hope they only tagged the name and not the fact she's your wife !

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2015, 01:43:20 pm »

Never heard of face-recognition software? I believe Apple's iPhoto uses that to sort images into albums by faces.

RSL · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:29:35 pm »

When you consider that Facebook users complain about NSA metadata collection you can't avoid a belly-laugh.

amolitor · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:36:01 pm »

Well the difference is of course that the NSA isn't supposed to do that sort of thing, and for a long time they collectively believed that they ought not do that sort of thing.

There have been, well, there have been cultural shifts at several agencies in the last decade or two. Not at the CIA, though.

Isaac · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:39:46 pm »

Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 10:35:22 am

So my question is - how did FB know that this photo was somehow connected to my wife?

September 02, 2008 -- a brand-new feature called "name tags" in Picasa Web Albums that helps you quickly label all the people in your photos

RSL · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2015, 03:50:19 pm »

Quote from: amolitor on March 09, 2015, 03:36:01 pm

Well the difference is of course that the NSA isn't supposed to do that sort of thing, and for a long time they collectively believed that they ought not do that sort of thing.

There have been, well, there have been cultural shifts at several agencies in the last decade or two. Not at the CIA, though.

Quite the contrary, Andrew. They WERE supposed to do that kind of thing, and I'm damned glad they ARE supposed to do that kind of thing, and I sincerely -- even ardently -- hope they CONTINUE to do that kind of thing.

What they WEREN'T supposed to do was listen to the content of phone calls without a court order. As usual, some grunts just couldn't resist listening in to girlfriends, etc., which is a universal problem with any surveillance operation.

Unfortunately, our politicians and, it seems, a significant part of our great unwashed public, are too stupid to understand the difference between metadata and actual data and as a result we may lose the ability to stop a future 9/11 -- or worse.

amolitor · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2015, 04:00:12 pm »

It's not the metadata versus other issue, it's internal versus external. The NSA specifically used to be outward focused, and cross-border. The details of the rules are and remain complex, but the general principle that COMSEC operations were about communications between and with foreigners was pretty clear.

That, specifically, is the cultural shift I'm talking about. The NSA, and some other agencies, are now apparently quite comfortable with conducting operations entirely within the nation, where formerly they were not.

There are problems inherent in having multiple law enforcement and spying agencies mucking about in one another's turf.

RSL · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2015, 04:13:49 pm »

Quote from: amolitor on March 09, 2015, 04:00:12 pm

It's not the metadata versus other issue, it's internal versus external. The NSA specifically used to be outward focused, and cross-border. The details of the rules are and remain complex, but the general principle that COMSEC operations were about communications between and with foreigners was pretty clear.

Quite right. It was that way when I last was on active Air Force duty.

Quote

That, specifically, is the cultural shift I'm talking about. The NSA, and some other agencies, are now apparently quite comfortable with conducting operations entirely within the nation, where formerly they were not.

Ah, yes. But there's been another cultural shift. We now have a lot more barbarian murderers among us. The "entirely within the nation" stuff happens when external connections begin to make it clear there's an internal cabal at work planning murders within the nation.

Quote

There are problems inherent in having multiple law enforcement and spying agencies mucking about in one another's turf.

Couldn't agree more. As usual, too many cooks spoil the broth. But you need strong leadership to keep these guys out of each other's faces. Unfortunately we seem to have weaker and weaker leadership.

Colorado David · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2015, 05:44:50 pm »

Last week I read a topic here on Lula where there was a mention of the book, It's not about the f stop. I didn't search the title or anything more in depth than read the topic here with the mention. The next day I received an email from Amazon with a link to that book. That's kind of spooky.

Justinr · « **Reply #12 on:** March 10, 2015, 04:56:49 am »

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 09, 2015, 01:43:20 pm

Never heard of face-recognition software? I believe Apple's iPhoto uses that to sort images into albums by faces.

It's been around for a while but is hardly spoken of by the spooks/government agencies for of several reasons.

1. They don't want to draw attention to what they are up to.

2. It's not accurate enough to be used as evidence in court.

3. If it were to be shown to be widely used as it probably is then why is it not used to fight crime? Answer, see number 1 above.

As I understand it it's similar sort of technology to fingerprint recognition. Various points on the face (cheek bones, corner of eyes etc) are measured in relation to one another and this pattern is compared to other patterns. The statistical probability (not absolute certainty, or beyond doubt) of patterns matching then leads to an identity(s) being being attached to a face. With finger prints it was the probability of heights and lows being present in certain areas but these can be easily changed by the individual with a bit of old battery acid and a couple of aspirin, not so faces without the risk of disfigurement.

Not everyone has fingerprints, but we all have a face that's difficult to change and impossible to obliterate.

Isaac · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2015, 11:51:58 am »

Even "The FBI can now quickly identify people just by looking at their faces."

Tim Lookingbill · « **Reply #14 on:** March 10, 2015, 09:41:00 pm »

Quote from: Justinr on March 10, 2015, 04:56:49 am

Not everyone has fingerprints, but we all have a face that's difficult to change and impossible to obliterate.

Funny you should say that after I saw the CBS Sunday Morning's piece on Brunelle's book photographing doppelgangers (look alikes).

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/double-exposures-photographing-look-alikes/

Wonder how challenging that will be to face recognition technology.

Here's a solution...everyone should now go hunt for their look alike and have them fill in for you. Who would you trust more? Your doppelganger? Or a surveillance policing agency watching your every move?

pcgpcg · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2015, 04:50:13 pm »

I recently posted a photo on FB (A photo that had never been online before) with seven people in it. All seven have FB accounts. FB immediately correctly tagged six of the seven. The seventh (the only face that was hidden in shadow) was left untagged.

ripgriffith · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2015, 05:19:13 am »

Quote from: RSL on March 09, 2015, 03:50:19 pm

Quite the contrary, Andrew. They WERE supposed to do that kind of thing, and I'm damned glad they ARE supposed to do that kind of thing, and I sincerely -- even ardently -- hope they CONTINUE to do that kind of thing.

What they WEREN'T supposed to do was listen to the content of phone calls without a court order. As usual, some grunts just couldn't resist listening in to girlfriends, etc., which is a universal problem with any surveillance operation.

Unfortunately, our politicians and, it seems, a significant part of our great unwashed public, are too stupid to understand the difference between metadata and actual data and as a result we may lose the ability to stop a future 9/11 -- or worse.

The military really did a number on your brain, didn't they?

RSL · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2015, 08:21:12 am »

How about explaining what you think that means, Rip. Oh, by the way, how much military experience do you have? Seems to me at least some of that would be necessary to give you enough background for a valid opinion on the subject.

AlterEgo · « **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2015, 09:48:01 am »

Quote from: ripgriffith on March 31, 2015, 05:19:13 am

The military really did a number on your brain, didn't they?

so true, they did that to RSL

amolitor · « **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2015, 11:25:43 am »

An important part of growing up is the realization that other people can hold opinions that are different from yours without being insane, stupid, or misinformed.

People who don't realize this.... Well they're a bit provincial, aren't they?

Author Topic: Facebook question (Read 11840 times)

amolitor

amolitor

amolitor