The first-in-the-nation law in Colorado includes biological or brain data in the State Privacy Act, similar to fingerprints if the data is being used to identify people.
Sci fi or not, I kinda want them to get this one figured out ahead of time. It is kinda like assuming that a convicted felon could never be President. You wouldn’t think that rule would need to exist because come on, how could a country possibly want to elect a convicted felon? Its a completely ridiculous notion that could absolutely never happen.
And Im telling you that is practically impossible to read your mind without committing other known already existing crimes. There is a rule already for it, it’s called basic human rights.
When I say sci fi law, it’s because it’s fiction. This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that’s not fiction. Do you understand the difference? Do you think this politician forwarding this law understands it?
This is more akin to those old laws of banning all alcohol.
Want your privacy? Should force/convince your countries to ban cameras first*.
Is there a downside to having a law like this on the books?
Also, isn’t banning cameras like a mind-blowingly bad idea? That would mean people couldn’t do things like record police committing crimes, hell you wouldn’t even be able to install a dash cam on your car.
You’re wasting taxpayers money in fiction and pseudoscience. Every law needs at least one real example of something being done in bad faith or at least proven possible (even if the perpetrator fails at it).
The cameras was just a real example of invasion of privacy. By your logic maybe we need to make laws against time traveling ASAP, considering at any moment time travelers will be more relevant than ever.
You need to start making laws for things that really affects your life right now, instead of fictional maybes.
I mean, you said that camera thing like it was some kind of mic drop lol. I’m also not sure what you mean by “my logic”, since I don’t personally have much of an opinion on the law it’s self, I was just curious why someone would be so vehemently against it. I’m not the original commenter that started this chain.
If it’s a matter of wasted resources, I guess I see your point, but it’s a bit of a reach. I don’t know if it’s as big of a waste as you’re claiming when we have corporations trying to implant customers with brain chips like neuralink, I mean who knows where that technology could go if it ever gets off the ground. Personally I think the Justice system attempting to have a bit of foresight is a good thing.
Me: This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that’s not fiction. Do you understand the difference?
This is what I mean by your logic. Do you understand the difference between fiction and reality?
I mean, you said that camera thing like it was some kind of mic drop lol
Because surveillance never has been an issue /s. Did you just read the last comment and ignore the rest? One is a real problem, the other is fiction. Do you understand the difference?
Personally I think the Justice system attempting to have a bit of foresight is a good thing
Sure man, let’s make a law about something we know nothing about, what could go wrong.
Sci fi or not, I kinda want them to get this one figured out ahead of time. It is kinda like assuming that a convicted felon could never be President. You wouldn’t think that rule would need to exist because come on, how could a country possibly want to elect a convicted felon? Its a completely ridiculous notion that could absolutely never happen.
And Im telling you that is practically impossible to read your mind without committing other known already existing crimes. There is a rule already for it, it’s called basic human rights.
When I say sci fi law, it’s because it’s fiction. This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that’s not fiction. Do you understand the difference? Do you think this politician forwarding this law understands it?
This is more akin to those old laws of banning all alcohol.
Want your privacy? Should force/convince your countries to ban cameras first*.
Is there a downside to having a law like this on the books?
Also, isn’t banning cameras like a mind-blowingly bad idea? That would mean people couldn’t do things like record police committing crimes, hell you wouldn’t even be able to install a dash cam on your car.
You’re wasting taxpayers money in fiction and pseudoscience. Every law needs at least one real example of something being done in bad faith or at least proven possible (even if the perpetrator fails at it).
The cameras was just a real example of invasion of privacy. By your logic maybe we need to make laws against time traveling ASAP, considering at any moment time travelers will be more relevant than ever.
You need to start making laws for things that really affects your life right now, instead of fictional maybes.
I mean, you said that camera thing like it was some kind of mic drop lol. I’m also not sure what you mean by “my logic”, since I don’t personally have much of an opinion on the law it’s self, I was just curious why someone would be so vehemently against it. I’m not the original commenter that started this chain.
If it’s a matter of wasted resources, I guess I see your point, but it’s a bit of a reach. I don’t know if it’s as big of a waste as you’re claiming when we have corporations trying to implant customers with brain chips like neuralink, I mean who knows where that technology could go if it ever gets off the ground. Personally I think the Justice system attempting to have a bit of foresight is a good thing.
This is what I mean by your logic. Do you understand the difference between fiction and reality?
Because surveillance never has been an issue /s. Did you just read the last comment and ignore the rest? One is a real problem, the other is fiction. Do you understand the difference?
Sure man, let’s make a law about something we know nothing about, what could go wrong.