2 ms·
Meh. These things are just a [re]interpretation away from each other. Even if we now think our model is clear and simple. That's why face recognition bans and
by pas 7y ago
Meh. These things are just a [re]interpretation away from each other. Even if we now think our model is clear and simple.
That's why face recognition bans and other privacy protection laws ("personally identifiable information") are so welcome.
- gotstad 7y agoNo it’s not just re-interpretation away. From a legal standpoint it’s a whole other ballpark. It breaks the fundamental principle.
- pas 7y agoWhat is the principle exactly? Is that established in just one Supreme Court ruling? So can that simply overturned by a new one?
- Talanes 7y agoThe standard is "could any random passerby do this with legal and common tools," not "is this technology used commonly." Regardless of how the definition of what is or is not considered common shifts, the fundamentals of the two situations remain different.
- pas 7y agoMy point is that that standard was set in a Supreme Court ruling. And that is easily overturned by any other Supreme Court.