I think the worst problems here are around asymmetries. If I secretly have all your data but you don't know that and have none of mine, there's a power imbalance. But if we have equal amounts of data and know when each is looking at the other, that seems far more reasonable to me.
It's either privacy for everyone, or transparency for all, but this in between is the worst where some entities get leverage over others because they have access to information that others don't have about them.
Oh. Hm.
Maybe "privacy for everyone" is a better point to aim for.
The alternative seems to be no privacy as a baseline and then still results in an everybody-loses arms race to top it off.
We should at least know when our face is being accessed on demand and in some ai process. Same with our data.
We'll get there eventually but there will be lots of issues along the way.
This was what the FBI wanted in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and now, 70 years later, they finally have it.
But I do agree with you.
We can't stop eyes (biological and electronic) from seeing faces. We can't stop memory banks (biological and electronic) from storing the likenesses of faces.
Better than trying to craft legislation that we know the state will secretly violate is to make all of this data public and make the world's human facial lexicon part of our shared understanding.
This is the most ideal solution for an optimistic society.
Also, 1st amendment challenges only protect you if the supreme court is sympathetic.
Where I travel, (digital and otherwise) privacy is quite alive and well. (This is definitely outside of highly populated first-world cities.)
This comment could be straight out of 1870 when things were industrializing rapidly. We'll figure it out eventually. Hopefully without any serious oppression and/or bloodshed in the process.