That part happens, then when tagged with a name and or other data that is stored as well. So if a non user then signs up they are informed of the photos they are tagged in.
It’s unclear though if Facebook attempts to create an identity for the unknown person, or if it just ignores unrecognised faces until a new user uploads a photo of themselves. All of this should be laid out in Facebook’s privacy policies but it’s simply not there
From my understanding and from FB themselves they admit to non user tracking. They create a unique ID (fingerprinting) regardless if a user or non user and this ID is used as part of the FB tracking system. This is why there are extensions made that block the FB data gathering such as Facebook Container & Disconnect for Facebook
Every website that has a Facebook ‘like’ button reports back to Facebook on both users and non-users. This is one of many good reasons to employ an ad-blocker.
Even without a Like button, many websites have facebook cookies attached. Even the venerable ABC. Its disappointing. Basically, any website which has a facebook presence will have fb cookies.
Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
baby steps …
A US judge has ordered Facebook to face most of a nationwide lawsuit seeking damages for letting third parties such as Cambridge Analytica access users’ private data, calling the social media company’s views on privacy “so wrong.”
Another article regarding concerns about Facebook, this time by the former head of theirAustralian & New Zealand office.
I admit to not having followed this thread, having zero interest in FB (I use FB container to stop their ubiquitous collection of my info) and avoiding using google whenever I can, but this article may be of interest to some:
An op-ed that has many interesting thoughts about why Zuck refuses to reign in false political advertising.
The Zuckerbergs of the world want to maintain the right to have algorithmic promotion of hate, lies and scandal at the expense of boring sober facts. This the latest way of exploiting human weakness and mob misbehaviour for money and power. The unscrupulous have done it for millennia but now it can be automated.
The owners of huge and powerful media companies are complaining that governments must not regulate them because any elected government telling billions of people what they can see and read is contrary free speech, regardless of motive. But the same companies, who are not accountable at the ballot box, say it is perfectly OK to do exactly that in pursuit of profit.
The scope of what can reasonably be published has always been hotly contested. Most societies accept that some censorship of the most vile and destructive material is acceptable. But even the most rabid advocates of freedom of speech, who want no censorship at all, are at least logically consistent - they don’t want any controls at all by anybody at any time. But the Zuckerbergs don’t want that, they want their software to maintain control. For dollar.