21–30 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are processes to punish people and companies if they violate a ban and get found out. Works for theft, murder and other things.
Doesn't really work for corporations. (See: Dieselgate). They don't get caught for years, if ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are processes to punish people and companies if they violate a ban and get found out. Works for theft, murder and other things.
Doesn't really work for corporations. (See: Dieselgate). They don't get caught for years, if ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't really work for corporations. (See: Dieselgate). They don't get caught for years, if ever.
What are you saying? Do you oppose emissions controls because Volkswagen lied? If I rob a bank despite that being against the law, perhaps that makes you think bank robbery should be legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you saying? Do you oppose emissions controls because Volkswagen lied? If I rob a bank despite that being against the law, perhaps that makes you think bank robbery should be legal.
I'm saying that we shouldn't make kneejerk bans of things there is no hope of actually enforcing.
But you brought up VW's emissions fraud. Do you really believe what they did should be legal, just because they got away with it for years?
Good but don't exempt the government. Many local cities are building out vast networks. Including my very own Miami Beach Police Department.
If you're out in public then what privacy are you expecting?
https://nissenbaum.tech.cornell.edu/papers/toward_an_approac... (pdf)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying that we shouldn't make kneejerk bans of things there is no hope of actually enforcing.
Let's drop the bank robbery example since I brought it up and maybe you feel it's an uncharitable example. But you brought up VW's emissions fraud. Do you really believe what they did should be legal, just because they got away with it for years?
Vehicle testing (emissions, especially, but MPG also) are highly synthetic measurements that aren't very representative of real world conditions.
But to come back to the point at hand - a ban on "facial recognition" is so vague that it doesn't actually accomplish anything - the companies will still do it, they'll just call it something else. "Biometrics", "Posture analysis", "Location monitoring".
Historically, government gets tech wrong, and getting it wrong fast just makes the situation worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're out in public then what privacy are you expecting?
1. What one expects != what one thinks is right. 2. I suppose you would be ok, then, with a police officer tailing you everywhere you go, recording everything you do, everywhere you go, everything you say, and to whom, peering in the windows of your home if you forget to keep your blinds drawn? Just in case that information happens to be useful to a government at some point in the future?
I find it acceptable that if I go outside I might get caught on some store security camera and that video sits on a hard drive for a week and then gets written over but I do not find it acceptable that the store camera recognizes my face and stores my presence in an easily searchable internet connected database.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd expect the same privacy we were getting before such technology came along.
Which is none? Anyone can walk up to you on the street and take your picture.