Almost exactly what I was trying to convey here. I guess there's a reason our boy Bruce is published in the NYT and mudsy isn't, though :)The whole point of modern surveillance is to treat people differently, and facial recognition technologies are only a small part of that.
Even if we did ban it, some other technology would develop to sate the desire to take people's privacy away from them...the technology isn't the problem - it's the people demanding its existence, and their ever-increasing ingenuity when it comes to thwarting our rights.
Honestly, I think we've already got them. You can't make a movie about me without paying me unless I'm a public figure. If I'm a private figure or a semi-private figure you have to pay me. If you're going to make a movie about me, the public figure, you can only use imagery created through journalism. If someone successfully argues that the indelible identity of a person, no matter what medium it is captured in, is that person's "likeness" they're already protected to the hilt by copyright law. Go after the money and the entire equation changes.Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent.