My point is it's the same thing, just faster/cheaper. Perhaps it should be banned or controlled. But calling it unconstitutional is a stretch I think. If that's the case, regular "dumb" surveillance cameras should be too.
'“It may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties,” Sotomayor wrote in 2012. “This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.”'
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-sotomayor-undermined-obamas-n...
I see warning signs all over the place, that this train/building/place etc. is under video surveillance.
Cool story bro. Details? Who's looking at the data? How long will it be stored? How is that data protected?
I tried out SimpleCV recently, and was fascinated how much already works out of the box. Face recognition from a video is basically the "Hello World" program.
The phrase "Wake up sheeple" has been discredited as wannabe-enlightened, but in this case I feel like opening my window and shouting it out loud. Sigh.
These privacy laws could be really damaging to progress. In some cases it basically makes it illegal to make a machine do the same thing as a human.
No, we virtually eliminate crime of anyone that isn't friends with the bureau that manages the cameras
I don't automatically have a problem with that. Progress at any cost isn't something I take as "obviously good" and machines don't have rights to employment.
That's ignoring the fact that you want the machine to do it because it's not doing "the same thing", it's doing something slightly different.
If you make a comb with teeth too fine, it will rip out your hair.
You don't want omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient mechanical enforcement of the law. You may think you do, but you really don't.