Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: 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!
-
Big Brother is watching everything you do at your keyboard! ;)
-
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.
-
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 !
-
Never heard of face-recognition software? I believe Apple's iPhoto uses that to sort images into albums by faces.
-
When you consider that Facebook users complain about NSA metadata collection you can't avoid a belly-laugh.
-
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.
-
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 (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/introducing-picasa-30-and-big-changes.html) that helps you quickly label all the people in your photos
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Even "The FBI (http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/technology/security/fbi-facial-recognition/) can now quickly identify people just by looking at their faces."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
The military really did a number on your brain, didn't they?
so true, they did that to RSL ;D
-
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?
-
Seems to me at least some of that would be necessary to give you enough background for a valid opinion on the subject.
On that basis, you'd equally need to have
- smoked to have a (valid) opinion on lung cancer
- taken LSD to expound on the effects of hallucinogenics
- be gay to comment on homosexuality in the armed forces, and
- be one of 500,000 to have a valid opinion on military rape: 'Fighting the invisible war' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10678790/Military-rape-Fighting-the-invisible-war-inside-the-Armed-Forces.html)
-
I'm more perplexed by the very few changes brought about by this sophisticated global communication revolution that allows millions to be informed.
So much information, so very relatively little accomplished with it globally speaking. But at least there's still time. I just wish someone would provide an accurate inventory of the change brought about in order to keep faith and hope alive in the internet.
-
Well it turns out that access to information is largely irrelevant. We had access to more information than we could usefully assimilate 100 years ago. Having access to more, less organized, information was not (in hindsight) a solution to anything.
Our opinions and ideas are formed out of far weaker stuff than we imagine. Ultimately practically everything we "know", we "know" because someone we trusted to some degree told us so.
-
You seem to have moved unsophisticated/sophisticated from people to the global communications revolution?
Sarcasm?
Isaac, I have no idea what you are inferring. So much for communicating. And no, I'm not being sarcastic now and in my previous post.
Just say what you mean, dude.
-
The military really did a number on your brain, didn't they?
Childish insults don't really add anything but noise to the conversation. I have no contact, and have never had any contact, with the military; but I agree entirely with Russ's views.
Jeremy
-
Just for reference, I disagree with Russ quite thoroughly on any number of political issues, but as a grownup I am capable of being pleasant about it. Also, I know perfectly well that he's not an idiot, not crazy, and not ill-informed. He and I just have different ideas about some things.
-
Thanks, Andrew. We may not agree, but I have a lot of respect for your ability to deal with ideas.
Here's something those who think telephone metadata tracking is invasive ought to consider: What the NSA was doing -- not always as well as one might hope -- was trying to prevent another 9/11. If, because we've shut down the "invasive" pursuit of metadata correlations by the NSA, we have another 9/11, two things are almost certainly going to be true: (1) The destruction will be much more extensive than the destruction associated with 9/11, and (2) There'll be an overwhelming demand by the people of our country for much more invasive data tracking than anything we've seen to date. The requirement to take a suspicious metadata correlation before a judge before NSA people are allowed to listen to conversations will fall away. In the end, we'll all lose a lot more privacy than we were losing as a result of previous metadata tracking.
It's worth thinking about.
-
Here's something those who think telephone metadata tracking is invasive ought to consider: What the NSA was doing -- not always as well as one might hope -- was trying to prevent another 9/11.
NSA has a better job to do... here is what NSA shall be preventing, a lie like this one = http://www.businessinsider.com/the-iraq-war-by-numbers-2014-6
-
On that basis, you'd equally need to have...
Actually, Manoli, the answer to all that is Yes.
Otherwise, you are just one of the now-oh-so-popular and wide-spead professional armchair outragers, as I call them. People who philosophize about things they have no clue about, other than regurgitating what they read or heard, in line with their preconceived notions.
-
NSA has a better job to do... here is what NSA shall be preventing...
It is not NSA's job to determine the country's foreign policy, but to provide for its security.
-
Otherwise...
Let me remind you what Russ actually said (emphasis mine):
... Seems to me at least some of that would be necessary to give you enough background for a valid opinion on the subject.
You wouldn't dispute, I hope, that those with a direct experience can add a rather valuable, if not irreplaceable, insight in those things? Not the whole truth, mind you, but that isn't something either Russ or I claimed.
-
I have no contact, and have never had any contact, with the military; but I agree entirely with Russ's views.
Ah, but will that count in Russ's eyes as you have no experience? ;)
-
Actually, Manoli, the answer to all that is Yes.
Otherwise, you are just one of the now-oh-so-popular and wide-spead professional armchair outragers, as I call them. People who philosophize about things they have no clue about, other than regurgitating what they read or heard, in line with their preconceived notions.
Not necessarily, some people are capable of reading up on subjects and making their own minds up.
Out of curiosity what are you qualified by your own reasoning to give an opinion about?
The other point to be borne in mind is that being outside of something can give you an alternative or fresh perspective. Which can be as useful as insight from the heart of something.
-
Far too often I respond reflexively to the sound of a rattling head. This time I've decided not to do it.
-
Obviously you did respond. Obviously your response was an insult.
-
... The other point to be borne in mind is that being outside of something can give you an alternative or fresh perspective. Which can be as useful as insight from the heart of something.
If you read my subsequent post on the subject, you'd see that I essentially agree with you.