[flir]

> Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club.

Ok, but... you know it's inevitable, right? Shops are already doing it, the first weirdo doing it at a nightclub is probably going to be the doorman (transferring the old "do not accept checks from this man" mugshots to the digital realm), I don't know about other countries but the UK police are doing it (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-fac...).

One of the advantages of bodycams for the police is that the people they deal with get a bit better behaved when they know they're on camera. I'm saying we should have that advantage too. (This is "an armed society is a polite society" redux - a surveilled society is a polite society?)

Check out David Brin's concept of the Transparent Society. He's been banging on about this for a couple of decades, and he's a deeper thinker and more persuasive than I am. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

I stress I believe transparency is the least-worst option available to us, not the most desirable option.

[jazzyjackson]

It’s not inevitable if people choose to make it illegal. Illinois for one has strict laws around collecting bioinformatics.

[flir]

Maybe I'm cynical, but it's already here.

Is this the Illinois law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_Information_Privacy_... Because the second sentence in that article is "Notably, the Act does not apply to government entities."

My whole point is that the tech is already on top of us, the only question that's still up in the air is who gets access to it.