TBF the food places here that have photos on the menus are either chain restaurants or really bad fast food. In the latter case, the photos are flat, grey and unappetizing. (Because food photography is hard.)
Good restaurant in my locale do not have photos of their food.
I suppose the AI possibilities mean that the bad fast food places will start having decent (fake) photos which doesn’t really make that much of a difference to me.
1. A for-profit company rationally doesn't want competitors launching products using their code. Why would a non-profit care at all?
2. An app like Signal depends completely on network effects, so there's even less motivation for a community-fragmenting fork than in most OSS cases, where you'll notice that forks are already rare. There would have to be something very weird or contentious happening with the original codebase for people to want to fork it -- otherwise it's in no one's interests.
> It’s reasonable to push the burden of procuring that consent onto whoever controls entry to the space, with terms like this.
I don’t agree. I think if consent can’t be obtained, the only reasonable action here is to not collect the information.
The comparison to a zoom meeting is not 100% because if you’re walking past such a camera, you’re pretty likely to notice it and have the option to not step into view or obscure your face.
I think the legal argument would be that the owner of the recording device (in this case the TV) was informed and therefore responsible for informing others.
The question I think would centre on two things: is burying the information in a ToS acceptable for “informing” and is the amount of data collection proportionate for providing the service. I think the answers to both those is no.
I agree with your framing of the two problems, but I’d add a third: It is a large mistake to assume that the person installing the TV (thus agreeing to the ToS) is going to be present whenever it is being used around new people. It just assumes too much about the way people organize their lives, homes, purchases.
Intent matters in a court of law. A judge or a jury will consider:
- did you intend for the data to be destroyed in an eventual search?
- probably yes, because you went to the trouble to set up a duress password
- is it reasonably that you mixed up the two passwords? No, because only an idiot would make them similar and you're clearly no idiot, because you were able to set up a phone with a duress password.
- hence, you intentionally made the officer wipe your data, and you will be held liable.
It doesn't make any difference if the destroyed potential evidence is physical or digital.
The law as written is stupid, but that does not mean courts are stupid.
It is rather funny to look at how some programmers believe they can "trick" the law. It does not work like computer code!
and how if this similar to how a duress password work? say breaking the lock burn the contents somehow, to prevent documents falling into thief's hands for the sake of the comparison.
Swedish tradition has it that trolls would replace human babies with their own babies. It does not take a long leap of imagination to to see how this could be used as an excuse for the practice of putting unwanted/deformed babies out into the forest ”for the wolves”. (Disclaimer: I don’t know how common that practice might have been, since it would presumably stem from prehistoric times)
Good restaurant in my locale do not have photos of their food.
I suppose the AI possibilities mean that the bad fast food places will start having decent (fake) photos which doesn’t really make that much of a difference to me.
reply