4 ms·
...or, you could; y'know, not cheat on your wife. Always an option. :P I get your point, just poor example.
by lostgame 6y ago
...or, you could; y'know, not cheat on your wife.
Always an option. :P
I get your point, just poor example.
- silicon2401 6y agoI don't think this is a valid criticism. You seem to be criticizing the idea of a man cheating on his wife, as if the parent comment was endorsing the behavior. The parent comment was giving an easily-imagined example of how facial recognition can impact an everyday person. You don't have to be in the spotlight to be affected - you could be affected by facial recognition even if you're trying your best to go unseen, which the parent comment does a great example of demonstrating.
- jkinudsjknds 6y agoSeems like a weak argument. As a society, we don't want people cheating. If this is the view that one chooses to present, they stand a reasonable chance of persuading people the other way. It's not hard to think of something more persuasive along similar lines. E.g. an app that shows you the ids of someone's past hookups from facebook or tinder or whatever without their consent.
- watwut 6y agoYeah, but one could argue that this guy's wife is positively impacted by that camera. Now she knows the truth and has a choice to divorce. She is going to be feel hurt, but she wont be lied to anymore.
- silicon2401 6y agoYou come off as really wanting to shift the topic from the privacy of the man in the example. Theoretically the wife might find the truth, the camera manufacturer might make more business, the utility company may make more money from the camera, but those are frankly irrelevant to the original point: ubiquitous facial recognition brings a risk to even ordinary people. That's not changed just because others may benefit.