3 ms·
It ultimately boils down to who owns the signal. You would love to have a system that scanned the world's photos and notified you automatically about people co
by fixermark 8y ago
It ultimately boils down to who owns the signal.
You would love to have a system that scanned the world's photos and notified you automatically about people commenting on you. You don't necessarily want the government to have that same system.
- tonysdg 8y agoI'd also add that this begs a serious question: who _do_ you trust to own the signal? A multinational corporation? A government? No one? Everyone? Furthermore, how do you rectify disagreements over that trust? I may trust a multinational corporation (especially if I own stock in it and can vote on its directors), but you may trust your government, and our neighbor may not trust anyone. Both of those questions need to be "solved" (if such a thing is even possible), but that's (obviously) a lot easier said than done.
- self_awareness 8y agoWhat I meant was that the "bad guys" will have it and they'll exploit it. No regulation will help because they will do it illegally. I want to be able to defend against it, but I won't be able to do it if there will be regulations against using those algorithms. So I would rather allow anyone to have access to face recognition software, than to allow using it only for illegal use. Because nobody can prevent it from being used illegally.