5 ms·

Face recognition is a great example of a privacy-toxic technology thwarted by something like GDPR. As soon as you cross the line from mass recording of anonymo

Face recognition is a great example of a privacy-toxic technology thwarted by something like GDPR. As soon as you cross the line from mass recording of anonymous images to recognizing individuals, even in a public space, you require consent. The only problem is that the main users of face recognition, security agencies and government are not subject to GDPR - that needs to be restricted in a future version because today it wouldn't have been politically feasible.

lucb1e 8y ago
This website isn't even GDPR compliant and it's trying. Imagine the footage being recorded of us all silently, without cookie banner...
kodablah 8y ago
> Face recognition is a great example of a privacy-toxic technology thwarted by something like GDPR [...] security agencies and government are not subject to GDPR. Sounds to me like it is the opposite and implicitly condones its use by excluding those organizations. The larger the law-built divide between government rights and non-government rights becomes, the less likely any of us entrepreneurs will be able to counteract it. Next, people will be cheering a law that prevents people from developing facial recognition technology.
- cornholio 8y ago
  Not sure I understand your logic. We moved from a free for all to a significantly restricted regime for personal data. There is, for the first time, a continent-wide recognition of the social value of privacy. This was achieved despite gargantuan efforts to quench it by the affected interests. And this is a bad result because it doesn't go to the politically impossible extreme? It's a foot in the door, we have a fighting chance for an universal right to privacy. That's the only way to restrict governments and the only way to get that is to convince the general public that it'a a right worth fighting for. The GDPR is a massive step in that direction.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    These are similar arguments the proponents of the Patriot act made, lauding the protection it provides and the great achievement in passing. Lots of people don't see this as a big enough issue for the sweeping changes that have been made, and to go from free for all to free for some scares people. We shouldn't confuse the universal right to privacy with the universal requirement for privacy. Not everyone wants the latter and it's not our role to "convince" them as though they are ignorant. Almost everyone agrees with the goals/intent of the legislation, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired as did its predecessors. They just keep doubling down instead of real pragmatic solutions such as actual enforceable statutes and education. It's so many failures on so many levels, but since it was done with the right idea it seems to get a pass.

lucb1e 8y ago

This website isn't even GDPR compliant and it's trying. Imagine the footage being recorded of us all silently, without cookie banner...

kodablah 8y ago

> Face recognition is a great example of a privacy-toxic technology thwarted by something like GDPR [...] security agencies and government are not subject to GDPR. Sounds to me like it is the opposite and implicitly condones its use by excluding those organizations. The larger the law-built divide between government rights and non-government rights becomes, the less likely any of us entrepreneurs will be able to counteract it. Next, people will be cheering a law that prevents people from developing facial recognition technology.

cornholio 8y ago
Not sure I understand your logic. We moved from a free for all to a significantly restricted regime for personal data. There is, for the first time, a continent-wide recognition of the social value of privacy. This was achieved despite gargantuan efforts to quench it by the affected interests. And this is a bad result because it doesn't go to the politically impossible extreme? It's a foot in the door, we have a fighting chance for an universal right to privacy. That's the only way to restrict governments and the only way to get that is to convince the general public that it'a a right worth fighting for. The GDPR is a massive step in that direction.
- kodablah 8y ago
  These are similar arguments the proponents of the Patriot act made, lauding the protection it provides and the great achievement in passing. Lots of people don't see this as a big enough issue for the sweeping changes that have been made, and to go from free for all to free for some scares people. We shouldn't confuse the universal right to privacy with the universal requirement for privacy. Not everyone wants the latter and it's not our role to "convince" them as though they are ignorant. Almost everyone agrees with the goals/intent of the legislation, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired as did its predecessors. They just keep doubling down instead of real pragmatic solutions such as actual enforceable statutes and education. It's so many failures on so many levels, but since it was done with the right idea it seems to get a pass.