🇳🇱
Easy solution to facial recognition and surveillance fears.
Give everyone an implied copyright over their own face, voice, or expressions. It would have a lot of consequences the most notable being you cant record people in public without their permission. But I think its the only real compromise if you really want to prevent it. It also means cops cant take your fingerprints or a photo of your face, which I'm kinda ok with.
@freemo We have a right to one's own image in our law that operates mostly like that. Cannot photograph people in public unless they're incidental. There are some exceptions like public interest, which would also generally apply as copyright defences.
@modulux Normally I would disagree with you (and myself) because of one simple reason. It makes taking pictures of large crwods or iconic places effectively illegal. No one could ever take another picture of the Grand Canyon, for example, as there would always be at least one person somewhere in the distance.
There would need to be some sort of resolution of this in any law for it to work.
@modulux That seems like an impractical way to word the law. It relies entirely on a photographers intent and that is easily manufactured.
I dont think "automatic" is a good qualifier either. I dont care if its automatic or not. Facial recognition isnt an issue unless and until it is abused in ways I wouldnt want..
Its a hairy situation.
@freemo Sure. The rule here is that you can take photographs where someone's image appears as an incidental element, but not take photographs of people by focusing on them and so on. Of course this rule is a little squishy and relies some on intent. Automated photographing of public space is prohibited, except where dulyl authorised by law and competent administrative authority. So if you want to install a surveillance camera you must apply and justify the grounds for it.