[jdnenej]

Sometimes the tech is so dangerous and the legitimate uses so minor in comparison that it should be largely banned or regulated.

[solveit]

Ah yes, the argument from personal lack of creativity. I cannot think of a legitimate use therefore there must be no downside to banning it.

[cf498]

Instead of going ad hominem you could also give a counterexample

[vangelis]

Could you provide an upside?

[solveit]

You could use it to find the lost kid in a crowded stadium. Or find lost people with dementia anywhere.

[cf498]

You can simply equip those people with a tracker. Then it also works if they leave the stadium. Put them in their shoes and you dont need their cooperation either.

If they dont have any just put the persons picture on the stadium screens.

[solveit]

But my point would still stand even if I couldn't provide an example either. The burden of proving that a technology has no significant benefits should fall on the people trying to ban it.

[pintxo]

You do realize that proving non-existence is rather ... difficult?

[umvi]

So we should ban the human brain for doing illegal facial recognition and other privacy violating acts?

[jdnenej]

There are countless things that our brains can do that are illegal to do with computers because our brains are so bad at it. Recording a phone call without notifying is illegal even though our brains remember it. Posting someone else's nudes without consent is illegal even though you can describe them from memory legally.

My eyes can't instantly recognise hundreds of strangers on the street and sync that data up with the global adtech database.