> The argument to me centers around the same terrible "but do it on a computer" sentiment that's been brandished to outlaw things that would otherwise be perfec

> The argument to me centers around the same terrible "but do it on a computer" sentiment that's been brandished to outlaw things that would otherwise be perfectly legal in meatspace. There's no "to me"; the argument is there in the clear and you can respond to it in terms of its content instead of the unknowns that go on in your head. > I don't agree with a ban on facial recognition: who is to tell someone what they can and can't do with a bucket of bits? Classic reductionist argument. They're a "bucket of bits" insofar that your physical body is a "bucket of atoms".