[dylan604]

I don't want to upset or scare you, but if you've ever been in a picture that someone else has posted online to any social platform, your face has already been tagged, recognized, and a very thick file exists about you and everything you do, like, know, associate, etc.

[phkahler]

>> but if you've ever been in a picture that someone else has posted online to any social platform, your face has already been tagged, recognized, and

And that is a completely different issue. The OP just wants to prevent that type of thing when they can.

If I walked up to several individuals (maybe even you) on the street with a camera and tried to take a close-up, a lot of them would object. I don't think "why not let me take it, it's already online someplace" would be a convincing reason to allow it.

[eminent101]

> If I walked up to several individuals (maybe even you) on the street with a camera and tried to take a close-up, a lot of them would object. I don't think "why not let me take it, it's already online someplace" would be a convincing reason to allow it.

In many jurisdictions including where I live in, taking pictures at public places is allowed by law whether or not some other human happens to be in the frame of my picture. It is called "incidental inclusion".

Others can request me to exclude them from my picture but they can only request, they cannot force me to do so. Of course, if someone asked, I am going to be nice to them and try and exclude them from the picture. Others could also try and move a bit this way or that way so that they don't get included in my picture. We live in a society and we can work it out.

In reality though, nobody makes such a request because most people know the law and they know that if they are out there in the public, they could become part of other pictures by incidental inclusion.

[mrguyorama]

"Incidental inclusion" does not cover walking right up to someone and putting a camera in their face. Like, "incidental" is literally in the term.

[eminent101]

> "Incidental inclusion" does not cover walking right up to someone and putting a camera in their face. Like, "incidental" is literally in the term.

Correct! I don't see where I implied otherwise!

[catlikesshrimp]

> on the street with a camera and tried to take a close-up.

I might break your phone. How difficult would it be to sue me and for what purpose?

[gabeio]

> > on the street with a camera and tried to take a close-up.

> I might break your phone. How difficult would it be to sue me and for what purpose?

Easily. Damaging someone else's property is not even remotely on the same level as taking a photo of someone? How do I know it wasn't their _job_ to do so?

Honestly if you think that level of escalation is okay I hope to never meet you in person.

And trust me I find people taking photos of me creepy also but it's easier to block my face myself than to smash the person's device and expect to walk away.

[dylan604]

Why would I sue you? I'd just press charges for assault

[catlikesshrimp]

If we agree on the definition on the assault as this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

Then it is not assault. See? The problems already started. The best you can get after an ardous process is an apology and a reinboursement, the worst would be it coming back at you.

Where I live, they recently declared gazing at a woman "indecently" as a small sexual crime, same as unrequested flirtatious comments to strangers. I have grabbed phones before, but I admit I haven't broken any. YMMV

[fragmede]

With how small cameras are these days, you can buy a pinhole camera and tuck it into your shirt and record everything without anyone being the wiser. Face as biometrics doesn't really work. Mother's and daughters and twins have similar enough face shapes to fool FaceID.

[MrDrMcCoy]

Theoretically, those kinds of images lack the necessary detail to qualify as biometric data. If they somehow do, then the whole category becomes invalid for that purpose.

I personally oppose all forms of biometrics for security, as it can neither be invalidated, nor is it safe from physical coercion. I also oppose biometric use for "tracking attention" because it's none of anybody's business but mine.

[fragmede]

tracking attention when you're driving is everyone's business. I'd rather you have a camera in your car making sure you're looking at the road, than have to drive next to someone who is on their cellphone and is trusting the self driving feature of their car.

[MrDrMcCoy]

There's a difference between tracking attention locally for driving as you suggest, and doing so for advertising and mobile device security, which is what the conversation was previously about.

While I consider your example valid in a vacuum, it poses a substantial privacy and financial risk in the real world. If a car that tracks attention also phones home, your insurance carrier may raise your rates or cancel your plan for occasional glances away (sneezes, children, etc), regardless of an actual problem on the road. Such measures ought to only exist locally within a car, but I have absolutely no faith that it will be implemented that way given the current data shared along those lines.

[fragmede]

I am moving the discussion somewhat but it's not a theoretical. Ford's Blue Cruise system has a camera that looks at the drivers eyes to make sure the driver is watching the road and not texting. It covers a large amount of freeways. it's not as good as Tesla's full self driving but it very much does the job of driving on the freeway in traffic for you.

[jobs_throwaway]

Or walked through any major city. There's cameras ~everywhere.

[EncomLab]

Or driven anywhere there are (fucking) Flock cameras...