4 ms·
I mean, you could ban “systems who’s primary purpose is to aggregate personal data on non-criminals” (please don’t nitpick the phrasing, I’m obviously not a law
by 542458 5y ago
I mean, you could ban “systems who’s primary purpose is to aggregate personal data on non-criminals” (please don’t nitpick the phrasing, I’m obviously not a lawyer) or something similar. I’m not sure why people are acting like this is an unsolvable problem - patent lawyers can write descriptions of fairly vague technological systems that hold up in court.
- mcculley 5y agoI am genuinely interested how this can be prevented. I don't see how it can. We are not far away from people having eyeglasses that are able to upload photos and download aggregated data. Everyone in your field of vision will have a dossier. It won't just be governments using this. It won't require some prior written permission. The same people that sold browsing data to advertisers will have this technology.
- landemva 5y agoRemove the funding.
- mcculley 5y agoPlease elaborate. What funding? Every cop can buy a smartphone.
- landemva 5y agoReduce your contributions to government. This thread is about government. Anyone can personally purchase whatever they desire.
- mcculley 5y agoThat is exactly what I wrote. Any government official/employee will be able to use this technology. If you are proposing some kind of libertarian non-government, that would be consistent with my original statement that the only way to limit this is to limit government.
- 542458 5y agoEvery school teacher can buy a baseball bat, but we don’t act like it’s a given that teachers will beat students with baseball bats.
- mcculley 5y agoI don't see how that explains a way to prevent anyone from using facial recognition technology.