|
|
|
|
|
|
by cnelsenmilt
1126 days ago
|
|
|
Sure, it is hard. But there's a gigantic middle ground between "no photographs ever that contain any part of your house" and "permanent digital video camera whose footage is invisibly passed on to the government". It is far from impossible to write some rules that balances these things. Yes, there will be loopholes: a criminal who wants to photograph your house could come by with their nephew and stage a photoshoot. But we live with those kinds of exceptions already: as giraffe_lady said, the law is not an algorithm. |
|
|
I'd be fine with regulating / banning without a warrant the second half of that sentence. I don't want to prevent people from having security cameras outside their home, those are pretty useful.
The current loophole is police asking the same 3rd parties that host your data for that data and those 3rd parties can comply without your consent. We'd need some type of data ownership laws for that sort of thing. I'd certainly support that. There are laws around NIL (name, image likeness) and ownership thereof. I'l like to see those applied to third party data storage vendors, but like dragon_lady mentioned, it's a step.
Of course, that wouldn't prevent the police asking your neighbor or local business for locally stored footage.
>the law is not an algorithm
Laws should be as specific and un-vague as possible to prevent abuse, mainly from the government itself.