4 ms·
I have ranted about this before: but it all feels pointless. The information is out there. You can make it illegal to look, but it doesn't matter. Consider th
by Gunax 4y ago
I have ranted about this before: but it all feels pointless.
The information is out there. You can make it illegal to look, but it doesn't matter.
Consider that a shopkeeper can recognize frequent customers by their face. Our brains are made for face recognition.
Now obviously that's at a different scale than automated plate readers, but the information is there. We just took for granted that no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces. Our privacy was guaranteed not in law, but in practicality.
You can try to ban it, and you can maybe ban municipalities from using it, but the information is there. Anyone can just set up a camera by their house or business and collect the same info.
- jjav 4y ago> Now obviously that's at a different scale This is exactly why the rest of your argument is wrong. The difference is scale is so vast that it makes the new surveillance society something completely different from people seeing other people in public as they have done for thousands of years. > no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces Because it was literally impossible for someone to memorize a million faces. Let alone a few billion. And their precise location 24x7. At most you'd have the occasional shopkeeper with a sharp memory who might remember a few thousand regulars. But even that information wasn't available via quick database query. You had to send investigators with photos to interview people.