5 ms·

> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order c

by exo762 5y ago

> Hardly sounds trivial, and how would you ever enforce or manage that? Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. > Also, that is totally counter to the current (US) laws that basically state you can record video (not audio) of any publicly viewable areas freely. This is irrelevant, because scale changes nature of things. Single photo of your person is just that. 24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Law was clearly about recording usage that does not amount to surveillance. > Also, face recognition typically runs on live streams to build indexes, so encrypting storage would not do much. Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap.

brk 5y ago
>Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? >24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common. >Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap. In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.
- jrmg 5y ago
  The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? There are legit arguments to be had about personal freedom here, but it’s plainly untrue regulation intrinsically can’t work. It works for many, many things - and works for gun ownership in basically every other developed nation in the world.
zo1 5y ago
And how does one view the feed from the camera if it's encrypted? That's the whole point of the camera itself. Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition? But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.

by exo762 5y ago

brk 5y ago

>Spitballing. Enforcement: make distribution of CCTV video undisclosed via court order criminal offense. The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? >24 photos per second for every second of your life is a total surveillance. Sure but we're nowhere near that point, or likely to be at that point. Also, almost nothing records at 24fps, 15fps is more common. >Encrypt the stream on the camera itself. Storage is cheap. In most cases and camera and recording/viewing software come from different companies, so you'd still need some kind of key management system.

jrmg 5y ago
The same way gun ownership laws have curbed the illegal gun ownership/use problem? Or, do we just keep stacking laws endlessly hoping one of them actually works? There are legit arguments to be had about personal freedom here, but it’s plainly untrue regulation intrinsically can’t work. It works for many, many things - and works for gun ownership in basically every other developed nation in the world.

zo1 5y ago

And how does one view the feed from the camera if it's encrypted? That's the whole point of the camera itself. Anywho, sounds like we're jumping through hoops without really understanding the requirements. Like, what is really bad about recording people in public? What is really bad about performing facial recognition? But I'd go a step further, what is it that we're trying to prevent from happening by making facial recognition illegal? This is the juicy part and the one where the "problem" becomes wishy-washy. We get reasons like: "Prevent stalking by government officials", or "stop widespread surveillance from...[something]". All present their own challenges and implied slippery-slopes, but all have different ways of being solved without necessarily making public recording and facial recognition blanketly illegal.