[blato]

This "_you should not have any expectations of privacy in public_" argument dates back when there was no facial recognition.

The idea was people can see you in the street, maybe exceptionally a wierdo would take a photo of you but nobody could find your identity back from that photo. In case of a crime in the street the police could exceptionally access surveillance cameras to investigate. That's it.

This is what "no privacy in public" meant in 2000/2010, and I was totally fine with that. I was totally pro video surveillance at that time .

Now we're in 2020 and facial recognition is happening. Everything changes.

Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person. Law were made at a time when a cameras were not such devastating weapons.

Everywhere you go, everything you eat, each item in the store you look at, each person you look at, heartbeat & stress level, which house you're at, who are you talking to, what did you bought, when, with who, what ads did you watch in the street, which part if the ads, with which emotion, we can find your identity, social posts, private data, health data, intimate message, browsing history, emotions, stress level, etc just by pointing a camera at you because of facial recognition. All this is anaylzed, sold and stored forever.

We're getting in a dystopia the worst case-scenario dystopic sci-fi movie couldn't even imagine and people are like "nah we shouldn't expect privacy anyway ya know"...

[imgabe]

> Today, taking the picture of someone = taking biometric data like fingerprint or DNA. This allows you to have a total control over that person.

How does a picture grant total control? Let's say I have a picture of you right now. How do I use that picture to either force you to do something against your will, or prevent you from doing something?

[blato]

People are being detained & tortured because they've been recognised on footage of public demonstrations.

Looking at China it's pretty clear how having a model of peoples face with facial recognition has been key for their total control of the population

[imgabe]

This is a government problem, not a privacy problem. If your government is intent on detaining and torturing dissidents, then privacy laws aren't going to stop them. Who do you think makes and enforces the law? The solution to that is to change your government.

[b112]

The US is one of the most democratic nations on Earth.

The NSA spies on its own citizens, and won't even tell congress how.

https://ca.reuters.com/article/ctech-us-usa-security-congres...

The CBP is buying location data on US citizens, tracking them without a warrant, country wide (not just at borders), and won't say why/how:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/dems-call-for-cbp-location-data-in...

Police, the FBI, and more use stingrays without warrants. The NSA works extensively to destroy encryption, and even have back doors into products for full, unlimited, real-time breaking of encryption.

I could post endless stories about this. Different US agencies, different data, different purposes for that data.

Put them all together.

Now consider that some of these agencies are "fighting" with democratically elected officials. Refusing to comply with democratically elected senators, congressmen, officials. State officials have even less sway.

This data is quite simply too powerful to be in anyone's hands. Literally, too powerful.

[imgabe]

So if we make it illegal for the mall to have security cameras then the NSA will stop spying on people?

[0xCMP]

No, you make the data collection illegal and with liability like it appears Canada already did hence why this company is in trouble with regulators.

Data should be legally made in to toxic waste we all know it should be treated as.

[qes]

> taking the picture of someone... allows you to have a total control over that person

Please, explain?

This sounds like nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense.