5 ms·

Seems people are disregarding this vote based on hypothetical loopholes. Instead, i am focused on the awareness this bill represents. Facial Recognition and Ri

Seems people are disregarding this vote based on hypothetical loopholes. Instead, i am focused on the awareness this bill represents. Facial Recognition and Right to Repair improvements both ended up on state ballots and came away with citizen/consumer wins (as opposed to gov/corporate). HN comments are usually quick to point out that "normal people" don't have a clue about these issues. I tend to agree. I for one am happy to have such objective data points that the public is sensing some urgency here.

chrisweekly 6y ago
Amen. Great points. I hope Cory Doctorow sells a billion copies of Attack Surface (the new 3rd vol in his "Little Brother" series), as it's an entertaining and accessible way to introduce these concepts to said "normal people".
bigbubba 6y ago
It's been my experience that the sort of people on HN who claim the general public don't care about issues like this have a gloating tone which makes their personal stance on the matter clear.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
A plain ban seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction, so not exactly a sign of being "clued up" but rather of succumbing to a sort of hysteria around this new technology. The technology is a tool and like all tools it may be used positively or negatively. By all means there should be a comprehensive legal framework to control its use but a ban means that benefits cannot be reaped, either.
- dmix 6y ago
  This is an important question. Are there legitimate positive usecases, either currently or more likely usecases we may never find out about because of bans like this? One answer to the question is that this is a benefit of federalism. Small states (as opposed to a large country) can experiment and other states can learn from it, whether it's a disaster or not. Just like Oregon decriminalizing hard drugs. The other side of this is the problem of how outright prohibitions often stick around for far longer than they should, even with plenty of evidence of it being more harmful than good (drug war being the obvious one but there's plenty of harmful regulations written in prior eras where it doesn't make sense). Again this is where federalism and smaller states may help because it's easier to change the law than end the drug war and all the entrenched interests. If it was a federal level ban I would be angry about the implications for sure. Now I'm skeptical but also don't really care because I don't know of any positive uses but I do know my local police here in Toronto are already using facial recognition and it scares the shit out of me. But maaaybe something like in prisons it could be helpful. IDK, much about the subject.

chrisweekly 6y ago

Amen. Great points. I hope Cory Doctorow sells a billion copies of Attack Surface (the new 3rd vol in his "Little Brother" series), as it's an entertaining and accessible way to introduce these concepts to said "normal people".

bigbubba 6y ago

It's been my experience that the sort of people on HN who claim the general public don't care about issues like this have a gloating tone which makes their personal stance on the matter clear.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

A plain ban seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction, so not exactly a sign of being "clued up" but rather of succumbing to a sort of hysteria around this new technology. The technology is a tool and like all tools it may be used positively or negatively. By all means there should be a comprehensive legal framework to control its use but a ban means that benefits cannot be reaped, either.

dmix 6y ago
This is an important question. Are there legitimate positive usecases, either currently or more likely usecases we may never find out about because of bans like this? One answer to the question is that this is a benefit of federalism. Small states (as opposed to a large country) can experiment and other states can learn from it, whether it's a disaster or not. Just like Oregon decriminalizing hard drugs. The other side of this is the problem of how outright prohibitions often stick around for far longer than they should, even with plenty of evidence of it being more harmful than good (drug war being the obvious one but there's plenty of harmful regulations written in prior eras where it doesn't make sense). Again this is where federalism and smaller states may help because it's easier to change the law than end the drug war and all the entrenched interests. If it was a federal level ban I would be angry about the implications for sure. Now I'm skeptical but also don't really care because I don't know of any positive uses but I do know my local police here in Toronto are already using facial recognition and it scares the shit out of me. But maaaybe something like in prisons it could be helpful. IDK, much about the subject.