4 ms·

> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice

> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Is there anything that isn't "interstate commerce"? Remember, while the court was clutching their pearls over Roe v Wade and other cases not too long ago, they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand, in which it was decided that someone growing food on their own land to feed to their own animals was "interstate commerce". My understanding is that it's important for everything to be interstate commerce because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and so if we define interstate commerce to include everything, then the federal government can regulate everything.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand Has there been a case to challenge this recently? The current court is looking at Alot of old precedents and is poised to rollback federal power in some big ways. Before them right now is a case on Chevron Deference I am not aware of any that has been before the current current that would challenge Wickard or any of the other terrible rulings that followed Wickard. So I am not sure the statement of "they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand" is accurate.
RecycledEle 3y ago
> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Really? So it's illegal to record my likeness with your security camera and it's illegal to use my likeness to stop me from stealing because that affects the price of goods in interstate commerce? I'm tempted to demand cops turn off their body cameras the day this goes into effect. Same of all government survillance. If I can find an honest judge, I'll freaking own the government. Who elected these idiot? Oh, right, never mind. I thought the counted my vote for a minute but obviously not.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > I'm tempted to demand cops turn off their body cameras Police don’t like wearing body cameras because it acts as surveillance of their actions. A citizen can FOIA request body cam recordings and, even though it happens on occasion, it looks bad when the police are not able to procure recordings for an encounter with civilians. I’ve seen videos of officers seeming to momentarily turn off their cameras as they have conversations amongst each other. They don’t like the surveillance. Don’t demand that the police remove one of the best ways we have of holding their actions to account. ---------------- I also suspect the analysis is off. It appears to regulate only those recordings which “[affect] interstate or foreign commerce“, which would not likely include police activity. That said, “first amendment auditors” may be regulated away with this, seemingly in contradiction to said amendment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

phpisthebest 3y ago

>>they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand Has there been a case to challenge this recently? The current court is looking at Alot of old precedents and is poised to rollback federal power in some big ways. Before them right now is a case on Chevron Deference I am not aware of any that has been before the current current that would challenge Wickard or any of the other terrible rulings that followed Wickard. So I am not sure the statement of "they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand" is accurate.

RecycledEle 3y ago

> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Really? So it's illegal to record my likeness with your security camera and it's illegal to use my likeness to stop me from stealing because that affects the price of goods in interstate commerce? I'm tempted to demand cops turn off their body cameras the day this goes into effect. Same of all government survillance. If I can find an honest judge, I'll freaking own the government. Who elected these idiot? Oh, right, never mind. I thought the counted my vote for a minute but obviously not.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
> I'm tempted to demand cops turn off their body cameras Police don’t like wearing body cameras because it acts as surveillance of their actions. A citizen can FOIA request body cam recordings and, even though it happens on occasion, it looks bad when the police are not able to procure recordings for an encounter with civilians. I’ve seen videos of officers seeming to momentarily turn off their cameras as they have conversations amongst each other. They don’t like the surveillance. Don’t demand that the police remove one of the best ways we have of holding their actions to account. ---------------- I also suspect the analysis is off. It appears to regulate only those recordings which “[affect] interstate or foreign commerce“, which would not likely include police activity. That said, “first amendment auditors” may be regulated away with this, seemingly in contradiction to said amendment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]