Your face is not public data, you are just wrong. Stop.
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Citation: 740 ILCS 14
Key Points:
Prohibits private entities from collecting, storing, or using biometric identifiers (including face scans) without informed written consent.
Includes the right to sue for violations (statutory damages of $1,000–$5,000 per incident).
Relevant Cases:
Facebook settled a $650 million class-action lawsuit in 2020 for violating BIPA via its facial recognition feature.
Your face is not public data, there are literal court cases showing this. A simple Google search would show you this. Sit down and stop spreading misinformation.
I can walk up to you in a public space and take your photo and you cant do shit about it as long as i don’t use it in specific ways. Its public data.
Public data does not mean the data can be used in any manner. It means its available to anyone in the public space.
There are literal court cases about this. Finally the government isnt a private entity, so none of your cases/law examples apply to this situation.
Look up any case about someone being pissed their photo was used for a news piece or journalism or artwork.
If you walk into a public space and that public space has cameras with facial recognition software, congratulations! Your face can and will be scanned!
And nothing about that act violates the laws you referenced for the government or any other protected use, such as say journalism.
Clearly its not since you dont understand it. The law doesn’t prevent you from being filmed or it being stored. If it did security cameras wouldn’t exist for example. Nor does it apply to governmental agencies.
Feel free to enter any private business with security cameras and you’ll discover they have a wonderful sign on the door informing you of this fact
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.
😂 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.
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.
Your face is not public data, you are just wrong. Stop.
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Citation: 740 ILCS 14
Key Points:
Prohibits private entities from collecting, storing, or using biometric identifiers (including face scans) without informed written consent.
Includes the right to sue for violations (statutory damages of $1,000–$5,000 per incident).
Relevant Cases:
Facebook settled a $650 million class-action lawsuit in 2020 for violating BIPA via its facial recognition feature.
Your face is not public data, there are literal court cases showing this. A simple Google search would show you this. Sit down and stop spreading misinformation.
I can walk up to you in a public space and take your photo and you cant do shit about it as long as i don’t use it in specific ways. Its public data.
Public data does not mean the data can be used in any manner. It means its available to anyone in the public space.
There are literal court cases about this. Finally the government isnt a private entity, so none of your cases/law examples apply to this situation.
Look up any case about someone being pissed their photo was used for a news piece or journalism or artwork.
If you walk into a public space and that public space has cameras with facial recognition software, congratulations! Your face can and will be scanned!
And nothing about that act violates the laws you referenced for the government or any other protected use, such as say journalism.
What are you arguing about, did the law confuse you? It’s pretty clear.
Clearly its not since you dont understand it. The law doesn’t prevent you from being filmed or it being stored. If it did security cameras wouldn’t exist for example. Nor does it apply to governmental agencies.
Feel free to enter any private business with security cameras and you’ll discover they have a wonderful sign on the door informing you of this fact
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.
😂 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.
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.
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.