[dgellow]

How do you even start to write a law for something like this? And I mean a law that makes sense and takes in account the reality of the situation, not one used as grandstanding.

It becomes really messy really fast. A law is established at some local level (local to a borough, state/canton, country), it will surely contradicts with laws from other places while overlapping with them.

From a very abstract view, companies will need to identify the person uploading the picture, the person in the picture, somehow determine which law to follow in the given circumstances (which depends on the context), determine if a consent exists at the correct local level for each person in the picture, then and only then they can train a model.

[shadowgovt]

Correct. And the answer is "You don't," and it doesn't appear BIPA should cover the situation in question.

[dgellow]

Just to be sure, are you saying that "you don't create such a law", or "you don't train models on human faces"?

[shadowgovt]

In the sense of covering photographs in general, you don't create such a law. It's completely impractical to enforce (since photographic capture of faces is already ubiquitous in American society).

One could, hypothetically, make a law against training models on human faces. Good luck crafting that carefully enough to enforce it without undesired consequences (did we just ban training doctors on how to recognize stroke victims, or---worse---ban someone from making an automatic stroke detector that could be run on incoming patients in an ER to accelerate them to the front of the line?), but it's a better starting point than banning photographic collection of data.