this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
174 points (97.8% liked)

Privacy

2143 readers
122 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
fxomt@piefed.social
174
Why You Can (And Should) Opt Out Of TSA Facial Recognition Right Now (www.huffpost.com)
submitted 4 days ago by Forumite@lemm.ee to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Lightor@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It does prevent that and there are multiple kinds of filming. Making a movie and recording someone with my phone are both recording the person, but different laws apply. I have gave you the exact law pointing this out with cases that were won.

At this point you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with established court cases and law lol.

[โ€“] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

๐Ÿ˜‚ you're just clueless. Literally every store with security cameras puts up a sign on the entrance doors that allows this behavior and there is plenty of case law that supports this. Your wonderful facebook case is a laughably retarded example. Its not even remotely applicable to this conversation.

  • its a state law which has 0 impact anywhere except Illinois.
  • its not applicable to the tsa or any state/federal agency (aka public entities) which are explicitly excluded from that law.
  • nor did it in anyway prevent Facebook from continuing the practice. They just needed to put up a clear and visible notice of the functionality as I explained with the security cameras.
  • nor did it have anything to do with individuals in public spaces.
  • finally it was settled for a pittance, probably less than the court case would have cost facebook just in lawyer and engineering labor it would have had ro dedicate to the discovery phase.

Im sorry but reality doesnt jive with your reading of laws. Feel free to get laughed out of court attempting to prove me wrong. Its almost like you just googled 'facial recognition lawsuits', grabbed the first case that seemed remotely related to this fantasy in your head and ran with with it.

Until you win that magical court case that doesnt exist, stop wasting mine and everyone else's time with your drivel.

[โ€“] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Lol so you did no research. Do I need to spoon feed you everything? Read the law, you need to understand the difference between recording and owning the rights to something or using it in certain ways. You seem stuck on "STORES HAVE CAMERAS!!1" Ya, I know. Maybe take the time and read the laws instead of just ranting about what you think is legal. Weird that those laws I mentioned even exist of it's not illegal. Weird that even more laws exist about it. Almost like it's more complicated than security cameras = everyone owns your image.