Absolutely not training data no way no sir - eviltoast
  • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    192
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Google photos and apple have been doing it for years too, they’re like we found this person 50 times in your photo collection, why don’t you name them?

    • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Apple, afaik, used to be doing this on-device rather than in the cloud. Not quite sure about the situation today.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      This is why it’s worth the time to set up Immich.

      It even has the same kind of AI object and face recognition as in Google Photos, but it’s your own cloud setup and self-hosted software, so all of the data is entirely yours and nobody else’s. It’s downright strange to think of those things as actual features and not privacy violations.

      • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yeah it really bothers me that they’re not asking you to compromise only your data, they want you to give them info on your friends/family too (who obviously didn’t agree to the terms and conditions). Thanks for shouting out an alternative.

    • systemglitch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Amazon asked me to use their photos app to get a $20 gift certificate last week. I uploaded one photo, got the bonus money, deleted the app and used it to help buy a new monitor.

      Sometimes these things can be turned into a win.

      • Huschke@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        So what you are saying is that you gave Amazon access to your device for 20$? Doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.

        • force@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          and what would “access to your device” be (assuming this is android)?

          • MajorSauce@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Quick guess from me would be permission to use the camera(s) and if they have some kind of file picker or gallery, permission to access all media files from your phone (and older versions of Android did not have this "media"distinction, so they would give access to all user files (excluding sandboxed paths)

            • force@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              You have to manually approve of giving each permission on Android, and camera and files/images are separate permissions (so giving access to the camera doesn’t require giving access to your files). And you can make it so they only have access to it while you use the app. If you take a random picture and then uninstall, they get nothing except that random picture.

        • priapus@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          apps are sandboxed. if all they did was upload one pic, what access did amazon really get? I’d do that for $20.