Hacker News Reader

Comment by smadge | Hacker News Reader

There’s a difference between offering facial recognition as a feature to users of the software and collecting biometric data as a additional revenue source. In one case the user owns their biometric data and is granting the company access to it for the limited use of tagging photos. In the other case the company owns the biometric data and is using it for god knows what.

View on HN

Where's the evidence Facebook is using it for a revenue source?

That's what court cases are about, and why we don't declare innocent or guilty before the verdict. The evidence (or lack of) will come up during the court proceedings, you'd expect.

Semantic nitpick, we don't declare innocence, but only that guilt was not proven.

Not a nitpick, pretty fundamental IMO. This should be repeated over and over. People forget it every day.

As far as I'm aware or have ever been taught, they're one in the same -- "presumption of innocence until proven guilty".

They are not one and the same - there is still the _presumption_ of innocence when being found not guilty. Not guilty means that you were not _proven_ to be guilty, not that you have been proven to be innocent. You are equally not guilty even if it's pretty clear you did it but there is not quite enough prove, or if proven you didn't do it. You are free from liability under the law, but you are not necessarily factually innocent.

Incidentally, this is largely why Scots law verdicts of acquittal -- "not guilty" and "not proven" -- reflecting the two standards of not guilty. "Not proven" carries the implication that the jury is not convinced of the defendant's innocent, but there is not enough evidence for conviction.

"there is still the _presumption_ of innocence" means that the law treats the accused as innocent, with an extra protection that re-trial is more restricted.

That's roughly what I'm saying - the law treats the accused as innocent, but it does not mean this person is _proven_ innocent. Legally, they are innocent, but there is no declaration made on whether the person is _factually_ innocent or not.

Nope, your quote is irrelevant, and it's "one and the same" besides. Why do you think people are pronounced "guilty" or "not guilty"?

Actually, because you can't be retried for the same crime you are in a very meaningful way declared though not found innocent.

A hung trial is closer in meaning to not being found guilty or innocent.

Arguably, a semantic difference does apply in that you may still be found liable in a civil case. However, civil cases don't declare people guilty only liable.

That's just your opinion, and given you're not even a lawyer, it's worth about as much as the latest Ethereum ICO.

In a civil suit there is no guilty party. There may be a liable party.

We aren't talking about civil suits though, are we?

Unless you're talking about something else, a lawsuit is a civil suit, at least in the united states.

You're the only one here talking about civil suits. The rest of us were having a fairly intelligent conversation about guilty verdicts. I suggest you read more closely before you contribute next time.

Whether it's a revenue source or not, fb still owns the biometric data and is using it for god knows what (and asking "evidence?" like this comes off as a way of avoiding the point)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com