zlacker

"Private parties" are _not_ me and you. _I_ can't begin to fathom how you come to believe you are, unless you consider yourself a temporarily embarrassed billionaire, held back from success only by all this legislative overreach.

"Private parties" are mighty multinational enterprises with essentially limitless pockets, entities whose factual power and political influence rivals most governments. Countries all over the world have been struggling to restrain them for the past decade in order to keep their sovereignty.

What exact "interests and ideas" do you have that would involve the necessity for public facial recognition? Because I, for one, don't want my biometric data in your system without my explicit consent.

>>shmeee+(OP)
The beautifully named 32024R1689, aka AI Act, prohibits a lot of random stuff. It definitely makes many AI efforts into a legal minefield. It does not just cover live facial recognition in public spaces, which I personally could live without.

"Private parties" refer to non-governmental entities, such as individuals or businesses. You may be acting on a governments behalf, but I am not.

>>shmeee+(OP)
Private parties are quite literally me and you in addition to large multinational corporations. If you think large multinationals need to be restricted then just say that directly instead of putting forward nonsensical semantic arguments.

> I, for one, don't want my biometric data in your system without my explicit consent.

If it's a single individual watching (for example) the sidewalk in front of his house and not disseminating the data in any way then what does it matter? Where is the potential downside? There are plenty of neighborhoods with at least a few retirees sitting staring out the front window for multiple hours each day.

As far as I can tell in the vast majority of cases surveillance only becomes problematic when both ubiquitous and centralized.