On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 07:02:29AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019, 10:35:17 PM PST, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 06:26:16 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
I find this planned Portland rule foolish and highly improper, at least in regard to how it controls "private corporations".
spoken like the typical corporate fascist posing as 'libertarian'
A "corporation" is merely a fictional 'person', acting as a business. I see no reason that a government (such as the City of Portland) should be allowed to prohibit "corporations" from using of facial recognition, yet not have the power (if the City government so chose) to prohibit ordinary citizens from likewise using facial recognition. What's the difference? Which is it? A Statist wants 'government' to do anything it wants. Require anything. Prohibit anything. Control everything.
As you say corporations are fictional. If corporations, fictional entities, are imposed upon us and granted actual "rights" (limited liability, right to appear in court, etc), then "the people" have the right to curtail the rights of the fictional entity, to the extent the people so choose, and certainty to any and every extent that corporations step into (affect) the rights of humans. Humans come first. One basic human right, is the right to privacy. If we uphold the rights of corporations to collect any biometric data about humans that they choose ("because we must not stop capitalism"), then we are encouraging the violation of the the human right to privacy. Except that information identifying me is allowed to be private, my right to privacy does not exist. This is so for travel, for example on the public roads by vehicle, and also on public footpaths by foot or bicycle. The human must be put first. Our basic human rights must be upheld in the face of those who would collect, sell and otherwise abuse our data and privacy.