Conversation

Notices

1. 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 17-Jan-2020 12:26:57 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   Easy solution to facial recognition and surveillance fears.

   Give everyone an implied copyright over their own face, voice, or expressions. It would have a lot of consequences the most notable being you cant record people in public without their permission. But I think its the only real compromise if you really want to prevent it. It also means cops cant take your fingerprints or a photo of your face, which I'm kinda ok with.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 17-Jan-2020 12:54:22 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • David P A

     @modulux Normally I would disagree with you (and myself) because of one simple reason. It makes taking pictures of large crwods or iconic places effectively illegal. No one could ever take another picture of the Grand Canyon, for example, as there would always be at least one person somewhere in the distance.

     There would need to be some sort of resolution of this in any law for it to work.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 17-Jan-2020 12:54:46 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • Algot

     @Algot Damn near impossible really, and with good reason. It would cause legal hell.

   • 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Friday, 17-Jan-2020 13:00:55 UTC 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     • David P A

     @modulux That seems like an impractical way to word the law. It relies entirely on a photographers intent and that is easily manufactured.

     I dont think "automatic" is a good qualifier either. I dont care if its automatic or not. Facial recognition isnt an issue unless and until it is abused in ways I wouldnt want..

     Its a hairy situation.