> Just because you were in public didn't mean you'd reasonably expect to be recorded.
Sure, but as you say, times have changed and the law needs to keep up. I agree. In my post that you replied to, what I'm saying is that it's futile to adjust the law to prevent people from being recorded. It's better for the law to specify what is acceptable to do with recordings once they are made.
In Europe, that's already happening. For example, in Europe, processing any data relating to your identity, including what can be derived from such recordings, is quite limited under the law. Many uses that you might be concerned about already require your express consent.
Just to be clear, I'm not countering your premise, I'm adding to it and providing additional context to justify such an addition. I think you're mainly right that it is better to regulate the usage but I think that we should use the framing of what is being done in public to help define how that data can be used. E.g. a person randomly talking to their friend should have a more respected privacy than a person screaming in the middle of the streets.
Sure, but as you say, times have changed and the law needs to keep up. I agree. In my post that you replied to, what I'm saying is that it's futile to adjust the law to prevent people from being recorded. It's better for the law to specify what is acceptable to do with recordings once they are made.
In Europe, that's already happening. For example, in Europe, processing any data relating to your identity, including what can be derived from such recordings, is quite limited under the law. Many uses that you might be concerned about already require your express consent.