25 ms·
This is really interesting and I agree, but I think only addressing facial recognition is missing the forest for a tree. There is an underlying idea here of a
by mpolichette 8y ago
This is really interesting and I agree, but I think only addressing facial recognition is missing the forest for a tree.
There is an underlying idea here of a person owning information about themselves and having control over it and making sure a company can not use it inappropriately. I think addressing it as only 'facial recognition' wouldn't go far enough.
- krrrh 8y agoThere is already a circle around an individual’s health data. This represents an expansion of that circle, and I think by focusing on the technology before it becomes too deeply integrated into “the way things are” it can happen quickly, in the way that congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in 1995. Expanding the circle to protect more PII in general is going to be a longer fight because we’ve already let economic power and consumer behaviour develop into a strong status quo. For instance, if strong regulations came in to limit the creation of profiles for targeted advertising and that resulted in Google withdrawing free email accounts from the market, it might not have a lot of popular support.
- wmf 8y agoThey're not missing anything; by regulating hot topics individually they can prevent sweeping GDPR-style privacy regulation.
- mpolichette 8y agoI am not convinced GDPR is a bad thing yet... What makes you think it is?
- wmf 8y agoI like GDPR but it's probably bad for Microsoft.