3 ms·
The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be chan
by gowld 7y ago
The law apparently says that hoarding biometric data is not protected -- only abusing it for harm is. Until a harm is artiulated, no foul. The law could be changed to overturn the longstanding precedent that facial data is not private.
The simple fact is that the digital world is a new world, and we need new law. Old law simply doesn't extrapolate.
- autoexec 7y agoread the law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0994.htm It's short and pretty clear. the words harm, injury, abuse etc are nowhere to be found. Google violated the law as written but the judge didn't even address that because he decided they had no right to complain in the first place. It reminds me of the case journalists made against the US government after it came to light that they were illegally wiretapping them. The fact that the government's mass surveillance program was exposed wasn't enough for the courts who decided that because the journalists who took it to court couldn't prove that specific instances of wiretapping occurred (information they couldn't possibly have because it's secret) they had no right to sue and the fact that wiretaps were put in place without a warrant wasn't even addressed.