upvote
That was the maliciously compliant way that companies chose to do to a reasonable law.
reply
The exact same law says LG TVs can't record you without consent. Do you like the law or not?
reply
The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes. Let's hope for the irony of AI helping them figure this stuff out.
reply
> The law has been unable to keep up with tech changes.

Nah, for the most part the law has been unable to keep up with (or choose to oppose) corporate power, and new ways it's being used. Usually there's no magic quantum doohickey which demands fundamentally new legal theory.

reply
For example, take this TV spyware thing, and rewind to the year 1986, and imagine RCA started selling televisions with microphones in them that recorded what was in your room and radioed it back to headquarters for some reason.

Obviously the costs wouldn't have worked at the time, but is there anything that was missing in our ability to describe the risks and wrongness? The concepts of privacy and consent, contracts and monopolies, ownership and licensing... They were all there 40 years ago.

In other words, the bee in my bonnet involves how the phrase "keeping up with the technology" sometimes becomes way to shift blame and a false target. It distracts us from the immediate political alignment problem towards a nebulous future technological one, which is so ill-defined it can never arrive. ("Once technology finally stops changing, then we'll legislate for our individual constituents' rights.")

reply
deleted
reply
why would it do that?
reply
[flagged]
reply