| > You're in public, you have no expectation of privacy That's wrong from the start and leads to people not using their rights (e.g. not going to a demonstration, because they have to fear long-term repression). > whether the video is assessed by computers or an army of humans, does it matter? Don't human viewers have 'facial recognition technology'? Scale matters and computers are machines of scale. When I no longer have a risk of getting recognized somewhere but instead know that I will and that this information can be stored long-term that has consequences on peoples behavior. See above why that's bad. Sure, in theory you could try to employ half the population of SF to get the same result as one computer. That would lead to discussions about usage of limited city resources very, very fast and probably stop this in it's tracks. These options are only equivalent in theory, not in practice. > Technology is neutral, what matters is what we do with it. Banning usages society deems bad is a valid option of "what to do with it". If you want other options you are always free to argue for them, but then you can no longer claim it's neutral. |