Who says these are rights? I agree free speech is a right, but who (legally) grants me the right to privacy and anonymity in public? Does me recognizing someone in public violate their right to anonymity?
Privacy is a recognized legal right, anonymity in public isn't. But government spying on people in public is forbidden in many/most world states.
Specifically in the US, amendment IV to the constitution says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
That's not my understanding of it. I can't be frisked, house searched, be forced to hand over documents or other items for review without a very compelling reason is my understanding.
A government worker watching me walk from my car to the grocery store, come out and load groceries into the car, let out an expletive and walk back into the grocery store to buy the bread that was forgotten, and then head back to my car isn't something I'm protected against. Not sure the value in it, but there's nothing preventing them from doing so.
Similarly, if someone made a public post on Facebook or some other social media site threatening someone at the city council, facial recognition picks them up at some government building and they linked the facial recognition to name which linked back to their social media and that post showed up, I don't think they'd be in the wrong for then searching them. Constitutionally. Does it feel weird? Sure, but everything there is public and at that point it creates the basis for a reasonable search so searching them for weapons and/or charging them with communicating a threat seems fair now.
Now if we're talking about someone pre-emptively scouring a person's cloud storage and finding something worth investigating, that'd violate it in my book.
There's at least a reasonable argument that the scale plays a role. It could be somewhat similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones#Justice... - the expectation of privacy is violated because digital tools allow a larger breadth of surveillance that crosses a line.
When you leave your house and/or are in plain view that does not require tress-passing.
This stuff has already been decided. Remember the "Streisand" effect?
If you step out in public, anyone can record you or take your photo. Including a government agency. What is going to be interesting is what public entities (agencies) are restricted from doing with said data. I don't see laws being passed restricting everyone from doing facial ID matches (namely private citizens or companies). Nor would I want them.
I think it is a hard thing for people to conceptualize that you do not have a bubble of privacy everywhere you go. In certain places (home) you do. Not much elsewhere.
There is a reasonable expectation to not be face-tracked in public just like there is a reasonable expectation for everyone not to be followed 24/7 by undercover officers. In the past law enforcement did have to be told not to do the latter, since it's a total waste of resources, but now the former is cheap enough to actually happen and administrators want the new tech on their resumes.
Current precedent is out of date. Free society depends on the people's ability to bend and break unjust laws. It cannot survive the ossification of mass surveillance.
Who says these are rights? I agree free speech is a right, but who (legally) grants me the right to privacy and anonymity in public? Does me recognizing someone in public violate their right to anonymity?