3 ms·

This comment reinforces the OP's point: opponents of facial recognition seem to approach the world with a particular value system that includes a disagreement w

This comment reinforces the OP's point: opponents of facial recognition seem to approach the world with a particular value system that includes a disagreement with several existing laws. Instead of working to get these laws changed, facial recognition opponents advocate bans on technology that would maken these laws easier to enforce. Why should they succeed? > No street art Good. Graffiti is a blight. > No protesting There's protesting and there's "protesting". Lawful protest will be unaffected. Unlawful protest involving criminal behavior will become much more difficult. Good outcome. > No way to break away from the stigmas assigned you your face In an age of background checks, your face is the least of your worries. Are you opposed to background checks? > No speeding Speed cameras already exist and don't rely on facial recognition to issue tickets > No jaywalking > No pissing outside > No way to rebel Why should people get to break the law?

mbel 7y ago
> Why should people get to break the law? Because laws are made by people and as such can be flawed.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Laws can also be unmade by people. What gives random individuals the right to nullify laws made by everyone? Don't like a law? Get it repealed. In the meantime, you have to follow it.
  - avmich 7y ago
    > In the meantime, you have to follow it. You also would like to expect that if the law is unjust, it can't manage to make too much harm while getting repealed. And repeals can take a long time. If people would easy organize for things like repeal a law or a government which suddenly become despotic according to majority opinion, we'd live in a different world. What we're trying to make here, banning face recognition, is to make mistakes in laws less costly - sometimes way less costly.
etripe 7y ago
> Lawful protest will be unaffected. Unlawful protest involving criminal behavior will become much more difficult. Good outcome. What is perfectly legal today might be criminal tomorrow. Criminalising lawful protest is one of the first things a despot would do.
moksly 7y ago
The holocaust was legal. No one ever entered a Gulag without a sentence. The Uyghurs of China are being persecuted within the law. Laws aren’t a model for society, or at least they shouldn’t be. Ideals and morals should, and throughout human history we’ve needed a metric fuckton of law breaking to get to the democracy we have now.

mbel 7y ago

> Why should people get to break the law? Because laws are made by people and as such can be flawed.

quotemstr 7y ago
Laws can also be unmade by people. What gives random individuals the right to nullify laws made by everyone? Don't like a law? Get it repealed. In the meantime, you have to follow it.
- avmich 7y ago
  > In the meantime, you have to follow it. You also would like to expect that if the law is unjust, it can't manage to make too much harm while getting repealed. And repeals can take a long time. If people would easy organize for things like repeal a law or a government which suddenly become despotic according to majority opinion, we'd live in a different world. What we're trying to make here, banning face recognition, is to make mistakes in laws less costly - sometimes way less costly.

etripe 7y ago

> Lawful protest will be unaffected. Unlawful protest involving criminal behavior will become much more difficult. Good outcome. What is perfectly legal today might be criminal tomorrow. Criminalising lawful protest is one of the first things a despot would do.

moksly 7y ago

The holocaust was legal. No one ever entered a Gulag without a sentence. The Uyghurs of China are being persecuted within the law. Laws aren’t a model for society, or at least they shouldn’t be. Ideals and morals should, and throughout human history we’ve needed a metric fuckton of law breaking to get to the democracy we have now.