3 ms·
Ya know, that conversation already happened, That's the thing, as the other commenter pointed out: for all practical purpose, there was no "debate" or "convers
by thirduncle 8y ago
Ya know, that conversation already happened,
That's the thing, as the other commenter pointed out: for all practical purpose, there was no "debate" or "conversation" (outside the tech community, and a few wonky policy discussion forums). It has been basically presented as a fait accompli.
The "powers that be" chose public safety over personal privacy.
That may be the rational for (some of) the customers.
But I'm sure you know all too well that the vendors of this technology are (overwhelmingly) motivated by the pursuit of one thing, and one thing only. And it certainly isn't your safety or mine.
- bsenftner 8y agoThe "powers that be" are the collective owners of the franchises at the local mall, putting pressure on the mall security contractor. The "powers that be" are the loss prevention departments at every major retailer. They are also the security at every sports stadium, college campus, and local school district who are strapped for cash, looking to cover large areas in as cost effective a manner as possible. If you are looking for some over arching authority that says "yes we do" or "no we don't" as a society, I think the active adoption of FR by all these smaller private players is and is the end of the discussion.
- thirduncle 8y agoAnother point of view is that the "powers that be" is you - and me - and everyone else who has a choice to make about whether to work on technologies like these. Historically speaking, the "if I didn't build X - someone else would have" argument -- well, we all know what that has led to.