> first amendment makes that impossible to stop.
How so?
Preventing facial recognition misuse (or use even). How is that impinging on the freedoms guaranteed in the First Ammendment?
How so?
Preventing facial recognition misuse (or use even). How is that impinging on the freedoms guaranteed in the First Ammendment?
On a slightly different note, why is the impasse "pathological"? Are you just throwing in a pejorative term?
> why is the impasse "pathological"? Are you just throwing in a pejorative term?
The current jurisprudence is a pathlogical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case) interpretation that clamps the solution space to maximal commercial/corporate rights at the expense of individual rights.
The example of the press is actually quite poignant. The current legal regime neuters the free speech rights of most of the press. People can be fired for writing articles saying things their employer does not want to be said. They can even be fired for saying things in their own personal time that their employer does not want to be said! The end result is greatly diminished rights for the individuals making up the press, in order to support greatly increased rights for the controlling owners of the press.
Maybe we shouldn't treat corporate speech the same as human speech under the 1st amendment, but that would allow regulation of corporations giving money to political organizations? Ok, well that's beyond the pale. That's obviously originally the founders intent in writing the bill of rights. I'm sure it's in the Federalist Papers somewhere.
Also, abridging corporate speech creates a precedent for abridging the speech of all human collective entities like religions, political parties, advocacy groups and the press, because there is no particular reason why corporations as an abstract entity created by humans to express collective human will should be unique in this regard.
You can't simply nullify rights when people exercise them in aggregate. That isn't how free societies are supposed to work, and it's too easy to undermine.
...corporations have thrown tons of money at making it so
Sure there is. If corporations (/LLCs) were prohibited from directing their humans to say specific things as part of their employment, those humans can still say whatever they want on their own time.
> Also, abridging corporate speech creates a precedent for abridging the speech of all human collective entities
It's disingenuous to pretend that a corporation (/LLC) is just some group of people. Rather it's an entity that has gone out of its way to obtain a government created liability shield. Conditioning that grant on following extra regulations aimed at mitigating the harm caused by the extreme scale fostered by the limited liability makes perfect sense.
> corporations as an abstract entity created by humans to express collective human will
Wut? The corporate mechanic is that of directing humans in a top-down fashion. The only people thinking corporations represent "collective human will" are the ownership and managerial classes who either are the people directing the corporation top-down, or at least have to repeat enough of the corporate kool-aid to get promoted. The majority of people view them as the least-worst option to receive a paycheck and often see their own wills suppressed - even though respecting that distributed intelligence would often help the corporation (ie "shit rolls downhill").
No they are not.
Legal fictions aside, it should be obvious
Then make it not so, we aren't forced to live with the status quo for eternity.
The law wouldn't be banning people recording faces. It would be much more specific: corporations can't record peoples faces at a mass scale to log them away and sell the data for a profit. If there's any edge cases to this, then let the courts handle it. We let the courts sort out grey areas already, that's their job.