1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md b/content/entry/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md
index 92ba253..ae15ae2 100644
--- a/content/entry/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md
+++ b/content/entry/banning-facial-recognition-isnt-enough.md
@@ -18,12 +18,12 @@ There's also another related page on the same domain that focuses on corporate u
 
 [https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/](https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/stores/)
 
-Nowadays the empire of the megacorporations increasingly partners with the government and thanks to government mass surveillance programs, there isn't much difference in practice between corporate and government mass surveillance. Therefore it's equally if not more important to also ban corporations from using facial recognition on their customers.  
+Nowadays the empire of the megacorporations increasingly partners with the government and thanks to government mass surveillance programs, there isn't much difference in practice between corporate and government mass surveillance. Therefore it's equally if not more important to also ban corporations from using facial recognition on their customers.
 
 The website also provides a store "scorecard" rating each large retailer based on their facial recognition policies. If you click "learn more" on the stores that "won't use" facial recognition, you can see that the only verification that stores aren't using facial recognition is a statement they made to Fight for the Future. Given their strong incentives to use facial recognition for consumer tracking and data collection, I wouldn't be surprised to find out most of the "won't use" stores are just lying. To verify stores' claims about facial recognition use beyond taking their word for it would require an audit which is probably impractical because the camera software is almost certainly proprietary.
 
 # False Dichotomy
-Both the government and the empire of the megacorporations present citizens with a false dichotomy: privacy versus safety. With government surveillance they say it's a balancing act between the right to privacy and public safety. Retailers try to do the same thing with the additional point of preventing theft. But this is a fallacy. Privacy and safety aren't opposed. My privacy is part of my safety. 
+Both the government and the empire of the megacorporations present citizens with a false dichotomy: privacy versus safety. With government surveillance they say it's a balancing act between the right to privacy and public safety. Retailers try to do the same thing with the additional point of preventing theft. But this is a fallacy. Privacy and safety aren't opposed. My privacy is part of my safety.
 
 The real motive for mass government surveillance such as law enforcement facial recognition databases is, boringly, increased government power and control: people controlling people. Suppression of minorities and dissent. In other words, business as usual.
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ In summary:
 * Retail companies are using facial recognition tech to track consumers for profit, that data inevitably ends up in government hands and companies have every reason to lie about using it.
 * Both governments and retail companies are lying about their true motives for using the technology.
 * As technology continues to improve, facial recognition will become more and more dangerous.
-* Continuous government auditing of corporate surveillance systems to prevent facial recognition tech being used by retailers would be impractical, costly and reactive, not proactive. 
+* Continuous government auditing of corporate surveillance systems to prevent facial recognition tech being used by retailers would be impractical, costly and reactive, not proactive.
 
 ## A New Law is Needed
 In light of these facts, I propose an outright ban on video surveillance of large public and private spaces. It's not enough to make laws against facial recognition. Retailers have every reason to lie and do it anyway. Once the data exists, it's already too late to control how it's used. The only way to guarantee the data won't be misused is to prevent it from being collected in the first place. Specifically, by physically removing the infrastructure of surveillance.
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Now I'm not proposing a total ban on private and public use of surveillance came
 
 It's all about giving people the freedom to decide whether they consent to surveillance or not. In today's society that freedom is disappearing fast and we need it back. There didn't used to be cameras everywhere polluting the urban and suburban landscape and we don't need them now either. They're too big of a risk. You may see this as an extreme solution, but it's not extreme. It's only far-sighted.
 
-Looking at how facial recognition is already being used for targeted harassment of Uyghurs in China, it's not hard to imagine ways in which improved facial recognition technology and other dangerous A.I. could worsen the situation. We need to preemptively stop things like this from happening by more strictly regulating what surveillance cameras are allowed to surveil. Private citizens may still record things in public. My objection isn't to that. It's to persistent, mass scale video surveillance of large public or private areas where people more or less have to be or would strongly desire to be (e.g. at a park or at work). 
+Looking at how facial recognition is already being used for targeted harassment of Uyghurs in China, it's not hard to imagine ways in which improved facial recognition technology and other dangerous A.I. could worsen the situation. We need to preemptively stop things like this from happening by more strictly regulating what surveillance cameras are allowed to surveil. Private citizens may still record things in public. My objection isn't to that. It's to persistent, mass scale video surveillance of large public or private areas where people more or less have to be or would strongly desire to be (e.g. at a park or at work).
 
 ## The Free Market Can't Fix It
 The reason I'm suggesting government involvement is the free market can't solve the surveillance problem especially when consumers can't afford to shop elsewhere or they live too far. Not to mention free market incentives are what created the problem in the first place. Even if there weren't monopolies preventing competition (e.g. a private versus surveilled shop), that would do nothing to stop employee surveillance. You may be able to choose where you shop, but you can't just decide not to work. That's why there ought to be a generalized law limiting corporate and government ability to use surveillance cameras.