Re:A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognit...
by 794CD01 on Thursday May 11, 2017 @02:11PM
(#14318208)
I don't think that either, because I correctly recognize that in public, you do not have privacy, either de jure or de facto. Especially if you're not even wearing a burqa, which would today at least give you de jure privacy because it demonstrates intent.
I'm sure that in the future, we will also create cheaply available opaque faraday cages that you can roll around in if you wish. And that most people will not care to do so.
Re:A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognit...
by Retra on Friday May 12, 2017 @12:13AM
(#14321395)
You do have privacy in public. Both the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" and the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement.
Re:A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognit...
by 794CD01 on Friday May 12, 2017 @12:39PM
(#14325476)
>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy"
Does not protect your exposed face
>the de facto privacies of anonymity, free association, and predictable rules of social engagement
Are outdated illusions with no basis in fact
Re:A crashed advertisement reveals logs of a facial recognit...
by Retra on Saturday May 13, 2017 @11:58AM
(#14331575)
Well, I seem to have no trouble practicing all of those, so I know they are based on fact. Perhaps you don't actually understand what I'm talking about? Or maybe your experiences differ. Either way, telling me the things that that I personally do are not being done is... not an argument.
>>the de jure "reasonable expectation of privacy" > Does not protect your exposed face
Yeah, that's why it is "reasonable expectations" not "absolute enforcement."
It is true that technology (both social and digital) continues to progress, and that the genie can't be put back in the bottle once it escapes. However, you don't have to put it back in the bottle. Speed limits don't stop speeding, and laws against murder don't stop homicide. The legal and regulatory system exists not to fully prevent understand behavior, but rather to reduce it to a manageable level.
In short: I agree with one part of your premise. Technology will continue to evolve and will continue to challenge human society in this area. Unlike you, however, I don't believe that we have to roll over and accept the implications and consequences of unregulated privacy invasions, neuromarketing and whatnot.