We need to build an expectation of public privacy concept where everyone has the right to go about their public lives with only human levels of tracking, recognition, and memories. That is being seen and remembered a short while is acceptable, having every move recorded and attributed to me is not.
This is an oversimplification of a complicated story, but a great example is when the NSA stopped doing mass phone / text analysis because of the additional regulatory burdens imposed by the USA Freedom Act. The NSA contends that the data is still useful, but also that the difficulties of complying with the law make it not worth it.
How could I, as a private citizen or owner of a property be prevented from selling photos/videos with timestamps and geostamps?
How could a company be prevented from buying and aggregating that data (even in other jurisdictions)?
How could an end user be prevented from buying aggregated data as the cost plummets?
Do you really think the NSA is not buying all available data sets?
Most ideal: make personal data a massive business liability, such that personal data is rarely even collected, let alone stored. This is much more possible than people believe (even making exceptions for current regulations like KYC). Does the local pizza place need to know anything more than my order, where to deliver it, and that the money arrived in their account?‡ Does a hotel or airline need anything other than a confirmation code to hand over the room key or seat? And yes, this may kill off or force pivots from businesses that exist today solely to spy on us—that's the point!
Only okay: personal data isn't shared or sold to third parties. Businesses can collect data on their own users, but it can't leak beyond the corp firewall or else big penalties come into play. Only okay because leaks are almost mathematically inevitable, so there will be constant lobby pressure to relax regulations, or enforcement thereof.
Not good: personal data can be collected, retained, and sold by basically all companies, and the penalties for unintentionally disclosing those data are just slaps on the wrist. At least it can't get much worse though, right? Right??
Businesses will adapt to any set of regulations—it's up to us citizens to demand the laws we want.
‡But what about remembering your favorite orders, or saving customers time by not entering their info for each new order? One options is to let them bookmark the page, so their device can get back to it easily.
We saw how eager people were to install Google Analytics on their websites. They don't care what they do to their users.
The government has pretty wide reaching powers.
The same people who sold browsing data to advertisers have this technology.
If your goal is to restrict the transfer of some other kind of data, copyright is already a legal and practical framework that had tackled the same problems, and offers solutions.
Of course finding the political will to restrict things like security cameras is a different matter, but I don't think it'd it'd case that we couldn't write effective laws to prevent this.
You would make it a crime to violate the rules but administered like and possible to sue in civil court for victims. The crime would be on the owner/operator of the camera and special provisions would be added for storage providers.
Yes, we can imagine some set of laws that would make the aggregation impossible. I don't see how they could be effectively created and enforced.
What bunker do you live in?
Because of this, the current battles that many anti-surveillance activists are fighting is in procurement and vendor/contractor policies, mostly at the city and county levels. Lots of West Coast cities and counties (Santa Clara, Oakland, Seattle, San Diego) have enacted all kinds of new bureaucratic hurdles on any public funds used to pay for surveillance. These include requiring RFPs with open competitive bidding, public hearings, testing and certification that it actually works with an acceptable false positive rate, and approval in a public vote by the city/county council.
The Nation has a good overview of this shift in tactics, which is also opposed by some progressives who take a more abolitionist stance to surveillance and say that they don't want it to be legitimized if it passes all the bureaucratic hurtles: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/mass-surveillance-...
Imagine this possible near future: Many property owners have installed smart doorbells and security systems with cameras. The data is being fed into aggregation systems and sold, just like clicks today. I can subscribe to an app on my phone for a few dollars a month (below the limit required to get formal approval in most organizations) that shows me where a face has been seen.
How will this not happen?
If a police officer can look up a suspect on Facebook, why couldn't he use one of many other services that are aggregating data?
A single man can record videos yes, but they can't record millions of videos and aggregate them into a searchable database. For that you need larger groups of people and a significant amount of infrastructure. You could absolutely limit the ability to do this without having to outlaw cameras or social media or anything like that.
Are you making some blanket assumption that laws can't have an impact on private businesses? Because that's clearly not true.
Databases of aggregated ALPR data exist and have economic value. Facebook exists and aggregates data. Can you elaborate on what kind of law you think should exist to prevent that?
Most laws depend on the concept of intent already so its not like you would have to outlaw security cameras or anything to enforce.
Anyone can personally purchase whatever they desire.
Why is this the only mitigation?
By the way, who is going to limit the overall power and who is going to limit the power of those limiting the power and why? :)
At the end of the day it's people making decisions. The best way to have them making better decisions, is having more of them having a view of the world that reflects reality.
More reality, less bullshit -> better outcomes. Pretty simple.
Do you have any good links that provide more info on this?
It is pointless to argue about legislation at this point. We have to assume governments and corporations will have this data. The only mitigation is to limit the overall power of governments and corporations.