[kbenson]

> and it will feel like we're all living in a huge village

A very apt way of putting it. For a while now I've held the opinion that anonymity (and to some degree privacy, at least the privacy you expect from anonymity) as we know it is a short-lived artifact of our accumulation into larger groups, where it's not possible to know everyone around you and almost everything about them. The farther back you go, the less anonymity there was to the people that you saw every day.

In that respect, what we're seeing is a return to the norm. That doesn't mean it's better, but I'm not sure there's a way to actually prevent it exept on an individual basis, and then only with a lot of work on the part of that individual.

[confounded]

> In that respect, what we're seeing is a return to the norm

In no way. Note that the article is about police body cameras. This is less about technology than it is about the power of the state over individuals.

[kbenson]

I'm not sure what you think gives the state a monopoly on this. There's massive amounts of information about most people online, and there will be even more in the future. I think it's likely that in the future even if you've never put a single picture of yourself online, there will likely be enough images of people in public and associated information to identify you anyway (use a credit card at a store? Why wouldn't they choose to associate your image from in-store cameras with that customer record?).

All the more egregious aspects of online marketing and tracking are coming to the physical realm. You too will likely be able to access this information for a price. Good luck trying to stop it. Honestly. The world would be a better place in my estimation if you could. I just have little faith in measures designed to combat economically incentivized behavior.