3 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. 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]