this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
175 points (98.3% liked)
Privacy
2124 readers
267 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a "but they could." The fact they are doing the comparison means there's some sort of machine learning/AI going on which would have to generate some sort of dataset to function. So if they weren't going to store any of that data they could say so instead of only saying "photos" won't be stored.
The site does later say "Biometrics are not used for surveillance โ Facial recognition technology is solely used to automate the current manual ID credential checking process and will not be used for surveillance or any law enforcement purpose." (so they do seems to understand the difference between "photos" and "biometrics") but things can change and the possible existence of such data would make it much easier to end up legally/illegally being used for such things than if it doesn't exist.