Question asked 2 years ago
China has experimented in Beijing and Shanghai with a video surveillance system that recognizes people from movements. Does this system improve security or impede privacy even more?

To me it is not so much an issue of privacy but what rights does one have in the community as identified as an individual. For example with police profiling by humans we try to prevent prejudice from prevailing as to police selecting someone to harass. There are really key elements of identity that will come up. If public information is entirely anonymous then important public health information is lost. What about someone whose health suddenly goes badly when time is of the essence? Or more likely the vast reservoir of public information about health is simply not used, losing knowledge about who contacts who in an epidemic? Let's take live video via Google Glasses, one accumulates quite a bit of data just traveling through the public place. Is that not an important feature of the work life of the person? Every person in some sense updates the city or human habitat in real time. They further define human access to an environment. These public databases are incredibly important not just in known ways but as they are collected add to the future structure of society because one has this from a hundred years ago, and so on. I think your article just skims the surface of what is needed. First the rights of people as publicly known need to be established, secondly this public information belongs to the public not private corporations, thirdly, the real world is redefined this way, so that bigotry and prejudice can be addressed in ways that are not possible now. Corporate use of public information like this needs to be regulated and very strong laws formed to stop identity carte blanche being used for profit. Identity belongs to the public and individual not to corporations.