Isn't that a legalistic strategy?
Yes, occasionally it may degenerate (as the patent trolls show), but a social issue should be solved with social/legal means, not technical ones.
So, say my AR software needs to scan an environment in order to function, but the law says that I cannot scan a particular "excluded" surface (e.g. a face), how do I determine which surfaces I must exclude if I cannot scan them first inorder to discern between a public surface or a protected surface? The law needs to regulate developed technology, but by the same token, technology must be developed to enable compliance with and also enforcement of the law.
It seems to me that the solution is a joint legal/technical one. The third factor is the willingness of humans to comply with the law. The fourth factor is the ability of citizens & government to enforce the law. To see where all of this could lead, we just need to look at what happened with the utter failureof the "do not call registry" (1).
1.) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/05/rob...
And yet, I doubt that the German laws that you cite would prevent the BND from collecting data, sharing with NSA etc, and so on.
The only solutions to this problem are legal solutions. It is a legal problem to begin with.
> The only solutions to this problem are legal solutions. It is a legal problem to begin with.
This is a flawed statement. Yes, "ownership" is a man-made construct (1). However, laws are only as good as our technical capacity to comply and enforce them. Take carbon emissions for example, MARPOL has put in place several tiers of ship exhaust GHG emissions controls (man-made limits) which are being implemented over several years because the technology needed to comply (and enforce) @ the ever-shrinking thresholds is still under development. However, industry is making progress and we are complying to avoid fines or operational restrictions.