Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

So they detect and use only photos where you're alone with the product and stop the use in ad campaign, as soon as you remove the photo.

Easy.



sort by: page size:

Anecdotally, I think it is the case that if you're a Pro user, and someone else is viewing your photostream, then they won't see ads next to your photo. This probably doesn't apply to your photos in other groups, etc. So we both may be right.

Are we arguing the same thing? How does one opt-out a specific photo? It's not possible as far as I know.

A user can stick the picture on a wall or on a scrapebook or even add it to his album and never look at the advertisement ever.

It doesn't automatically get removed. Some services will remove some information. Facebook, predictably, uses the info itself but strips it from downloads. https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/what-can-you-tell-fr...

The default is to not make your photos public.

You are asked to not share the images when you use it.

Because if a service offers to automatically tag my photos, I don’t expect random people looking at them. In fact, I don’t want anyone looking at my family photos other than those whom I explicitly gave permission to do so.

Same applies to my voice recordings. Same applies to my receipts. Same applies to my health data.


You can deny it access to your photos, under Settings -> Privacy -> Photos.

I thought Flickr premium accounts were so that YOU didn't see ads when logged in, not so people viewing your pics didn't see ads. Did they change that somewhere along the lines?

IIUC I think anonymous / not logged in people will always see ads on your pics regardless of your account status.


They want to use your pictures to sell products to your friends. Say you take a picture of your friends at Domino's Pizza. They can show that picture to your friends and say "Look this guy who you know loves our pizza. Come try it out." Now you may not mind making an endorsement. But with this plan they don't have to ask you for permission. They can just do it.

And if you turn out to be a hit they can use it to sell the pizza to everyone not just your friends.

And if you're really a hit, they can use it to sell underwear. Or adult diapers. Or contraceptives. Or whatever you might not like them to use your imagery to sell.


But what if you don't want your picture online?

You can mark photos only visible to yourself.

It's in their best interest to get rid of all photos posted to the service.

That's really interesting. My recent viral app, Profile Banner, also utilizes tagging of photos without people. How long did it take before your app was banned?

I'm _assuming_ the only reason a human representative is doing this is so the system doesn't get abused. Like say I upload a photo claiming it is of myself but it's actually the advertisement a competitor of mine is using. If they didn't verify it was something that SHOULD be removed they'd automatically remove my competitor's posting of their advertisement every time they posted it.

Granted I really wish this was all done on the client so Facebook didn't gain access to the images themselves but I'm not sure of a good way around it to verify the image is something they should remove and not an abuse of the system.


Cool. So it would prevent someone from learning my face from a collection of photos on my profile. That makes more sense...

Maybe their thinking if the things Facebook or Twitter does with your photos doesn't bother you nothing will

Most social media strips EXIF data to avoid that exact privacy problem.

But it's not even about exif data. If I simply post a picture of another person or a person's house or let's say the example I did earlier today a picture of an Amazon truck parked in a handicap spot that violates this policy. Because simply looking at that image you can identify the location of it.
next

Legal | privacy