I used to be worried about face scanning. But sometimes I wonder if it's an inevitable evolution of technology.
Which – to be clear – is not support for it, but a question about what is emergent from the new things we create.
Which – to be clear – is not support for it, but a question about what is emergent from the new things we create.
2. Analyzing images for biometric markers and linking it to a database of persons can absolutely be legislated against.
3. One step further, utilizing biometric information for decision making is also very easy to legislate against.
Some companies might do these things secretly anyway, but then we have the need for audits and strong enforcement of the law, which is another matter. First step is to get this into legislation.
But that doesn't mean any entrepreneur can decide to produce or hoard large amounts of weapons for personal or commercial gains. In most countries, there are legislative boundaries that make sure the state has monopoly of violence and (preferably democratic) government controls that force.
That system of course is still dangerous and fragile, but far better than roving gangs or ultimate power at the hands of commercial organizations...
Indeed, even though murder is illegal, it still happens. But the law is there to codify that murder is heavily frowned upon. Places where legislation were absent of the law isn't sufficiently effective enforced, tend to have more random violence.
The problem with that comparison is that it would be very obvious and noteworthy if Nestle started to drop bombs or hired mercenaries to prey on villages who tried to fight their abusive water practices, or whatever analogous weapons fiction you can imagine to Big Tech abusing their data and resources for invasive spying. People would die and/or be injured, likely property would be destroyed--these are extremely tangible things.
Big tech could be using facial recognition for years and fly under the radar. Privacy is essentially intangible.
I guess that difference stems from the novelty of privacy invasion "weapons". A bit like attempting to threaten a Roman soldier by pointing a machine gun. It takes time, probably a couple of centuries to build up experience with surveillance to fully grasp the ramifications.
But we're also no longer at the unknown-unknown point; we understand that there might be serious problems unless we dial down the pace at which we allow data hoarding.
At least some privacy would be preserved if there was a law that said "if you have a legit reason to track people using facial recognition, you must throw away all inferred information after 1 hour". Or some other arbitrary limit. Or a law saying you're liable if your data were ever to leak. Or some other obstacle.
We can, and IMO should, ban this type data use in commercial and party political contexts, but that isn't going to do anything to stop criminals and foreign governments doing these same things for their own commercial and political goals.
We need a milieu where we can survive that.
Banning research is entirely different.
The cat's out of the bag. But you can still exercise caution. I remember when that app FaceApp was trending, and everyone wanted to see what they looked like when older, oblivious to the ulterior motives behind the app. Essentially they were building a FR database from user generated content. So, don't feed the beast and don't upload your faceprint to apps every chance you get.
Werent you worried about face scanning precisely because its a seemingly inevitable evolution of technology? The use of “but” is confusing to me. It seems like the reason for being concerned has assuaged your concerns.
No matter how popular that becomes I suspect it'll turn into something that police will enforce selectively whenever it suits them rather than those laws going away.