| ▲ | brookst 10 hours ago | |||||||
How would you specify this regulation? It’s very hard to regulate outcomes when the component steps are legal. Not saying we shouldn’t try, just saying that path is well-trodden and rarely works. See: media consolidation, etc IMO it is much more practical to regulate and penalize the activity of using such a network than to preempt its creation. Heck, BitTorrent can be seen as a surveillance network. But intent and usage make it obvious it’s not. | ||||||||
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
We can absolutely say that, for instance, taking pictures in public is legal but surveilling is not. We could say that recording public spaces systematically, for the purposes of surveillance, is not permitted. That does not require us to say that individuals cannot record in a public place. We can even say that individuals or companies are not allowed to collude to effectively turn individual recordings into systematic public surveillance (e.g. you can't build a product that searches everyone's personal videos of spaces and turns them into a spotty surveillance network). | ||||||||
| ▲ | JohnFen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
> How would you specify this regulation? I'd regulate the database side of things. What makes mass surveillance systems such as Flock, Ring, etc., incredibly objectionable isn't really the cameras. It's the databases they feed into that allow for the unprecedented invasion into our daily lives. That's also true for non-camera surveillance systems. The concentration and correlation of individually innocuous information adds up to an egregious assault on us all. That's the part that needs heavy restriction and regulation. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | perlgeek 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
The GDPR is far from perfect, but it does cover this. It talks about acquiring and storing information that can be used to identify people. It doesn't specify what counts, so now that face recognition is pretty, it automatically applies to images. It also talks about uses cases where such things are allowed to be recorded, and forbids all others. > IMO it is much more practical to regulate and penalize the activity of using such a network than to preempt its creation. Hard disagree. If such a network is created, foreign adversaries (or domestic ones that don't abide by the laws) can hack them. Has happened quite a number of times. | ||||||||