3 ms·
Then OCR'ing the camera roll on your phone would be illegal. Every photo is stamped with time and location, and your camera roll is a database. That's why it a
by crazygringo 1y ago
Then OCR'ing the camera roll on your phone would be illegal. Every photo is stamped with time and location, and your camera roll is a database.
That's why it actually is hard.
Plus, what about legitimate purposes of tracking? E.g. journalists tracking the movements of politicians to show they are meeting in secret to plan corrupt activities. Or tracking Ubers to show that the city is allowing way more then the number of permits granted. Or a journalist wanting to better understand traffic patterns.
The line between illegitimate usage and legitimate usage seems really blurry. Hence my question.
- pseudalopex 1y agoThey suggested commercial use as a factor. You ignored it.
- crazygringo 1y agoNo, they said "extra penalty". I didn't ignore anything, because they said it's illegal for non-commercial use.
- pseudalopex 1y agoThey proposed collecting specific data should be illegal and selling it should be extra illegal.
- nobody9999 1y ago>Then OCR'ing the camera roll on your phone would be illegal. Every photo is stamped with time and location, and your camera roll is a database. >That's why it actually is hard. Actually, it's not. It's the same idea as having a journalist (or a private investigator or a law "enforcement" agent) surveil a location and take photos of those who come and go on public streets to/from a particular location. It's not the same thing if you put up automated cameras to identify everyone who goes anywhere for no reason, then create a database that allows folks (especially the government, but folks like Flock as well) to track anyone for any (or no) reason wherever they go. That's a difference in kind not one of degree.