Did you know the iPhone will search your photos for brassieres and breasts, but not for shoulders, knees and toes? Or boxers and underpants either for that matter. “Brassiere” seems to be a codeword for cleavage and tits.

I discovered this not by suddenly wanting to see photos of bras, but because I did a reverse image search for a sketch of a pregnant woman’s belly selfie to see if the sketch had anonymised it sufficently that Google wouldn’t find the original. Lo and behold, all the “related images” were of porn stars with huge tits and ads of busty women trying to sell bras, which surprised me, given that the original was of a woman with a singlet pulled up to show her pregnant belly. I would have expected person, woman, pregnant, selfie, belly, bare arms to show up as descriptions, but brassiere? Was that really the most salient feature of the image? Apparently so, to Google.

Usefully, one of the text hits for the image was to this article explaining with horror that Apple has “brassiere” as a search term for your photos. Well, clearly Google does too.

I promptly did a search in the photos on my iPhone, and was appalled to see a selfie I took one morning show up?—?I wasn’t wearing a bra, but a singlet, and the image is mostly of my face, neck and upper chest.

Seriously? I suppose you might think that the main point of that image was the triangle of my singlet that could have been a bra, but really?

The other images are a screenshot of some Kim Kardashian thing I saved for some reason I don’t remember, and fittingly enough, in the middle there, is a video of part of Erica Scourti’s excellent video poem, Body Scan, which is precisely about how commercial image recognition commodifies the human body. (Here is a paper I wrote about Body Scan)

The app Erica Scourti was using, CamFind, is in some ways more nuanced than the iPhone’s image recognition, which has no idea how to look for a human hand or a knee or a foot. That’s because those words weren’t among the images the system was trained to recognise.

Yeah. Somebody decided to program the systems to look for breasts and bras, but not for knees or toes or backs. I wonder why.

In her book on racist search engine results, Safiya Umoja Noble argues that one reason why a Google Search for “black girls” a few years ago only gave you porn results was that Google prioritised sales and profit above all, and so prioritised the results people would pay for rather than, say, showing web sites that black ten-year-old girls might like to visit.

Presumably that’s why “brassiere” is a search term for my photos, too. Some people will pay to see photos of tits and some people want to sell bras. The fact that other people want to sell socks and mittens just isn’t as lucrative as bras and tits.

Actually, my iPhone can find photos of mittens. Or at least, it can find photos I took that it thinks show mittens. I guess they must have fed the machine learning algorithm more photos of breasts and brassieres than of mittens, becuase the mitten recognition is far less accurate.

Two feet. My theatrical daughter’s efforts at terrifying me by sending a photo of her hand gorily made-up in stage makeup. A picture of a kid in a snapchat filter drinking juice. None of those are mittens.

It’s entirely probably that the image recognition algorithms were trained on pornography and ads for bras. There’d be a precedent for it: the Lena image, which is the most commonly used test image for image compression algorithms, is a scan of a Playboy centrefold, so that naked shoulder actually leads to a naked body in a fake Wild West setting. (This image is one of the main cases discussed in Dylan Mulvin’s forthcoming book Proxies: The Cultural Work of Standing In).

So why does this matter? It matters because these algorithms are organising our personal photos, memories we have captured of ourselves and of our loved ones. Those algorithms that create those cute video compilations of my photos, showing the kids’ growing up over the years, or all the smiley photos from our family holiday?—?they are also scanning my private photos for breasts and cleavage.

I really don’t like that my phone thinks the best way to describe my selfie is “brassiere”. I hate that. Image recognition needs to do something more than simply replicate a commercialised version of the male gaze.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Rob Gehl

    Hello, Jill —
    I have a co-authored piece on something similar, called “Training Computers to See Internet Pornography,” (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1527476416680453.) We looked at computers science papers on training computers to identify pornographic images. The papers certainly look for particular body parts and, as you say, not others. The missing body part in this literature, however, is not knees but male sex organs.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.