> I like that the proposed bills here are not attempts to force sites to remove mug shots (which seems like a losing battle) but instead just resists posting mug shots at all, which seems like something that police departments have complete control over.
I suppose they could also release future mug shots with a license that the images can't be distributed past such-and-such a date.
That would be a toothless law: some noname image board hosted in Somalia won't bother to respect US laws. Even US based firms won't care much because who's going to enforce the law? DAs on their own initiative? People on the mugshots?
mugshots still available to the public - however they must be obtained on an individual request basis, that comes with a license not to republish at all.
This way anyone can get a mugshot - but no one can legally republish it -
tech can give them tools to embed hidden artifacts to prove a republished pic was shared by person 1032 or whatever.
This protects people from being dissipated and can help with lawyers and such, while protecting privacy from republishers that would be subject to dmca and such.
I suppose similar could be done with names being posted online to some extent(?) - proprietary intellectual property?
A way for family and lawyers to keep up with people but keeps others from profiting on public shame / ransom to take down..
legally could expand on laws similar to "it is illegal to photograph a person when that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy if that photograph would "offend or embarass an ordinary person" or if the photograph was taken for the "purpose of sexual arousal or gratificaiton of the defendant." Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-605. "
Having and republishing 'illegal' photos or something.
All this reminds me of a saas idea I had some years ago about bail/lawyer/and notify your saved list of people - if your name is found in public arrest records online.
Now I'm also thinking about people just iframing the police site - may need to hide photos on screen and only show if click/tap to agree to terms then show.
I've had many thoughts on these things, should complete them more one of these days.
Many public record requests need a notarized request and a $10 fee, in particular marriage licenses. Even getting a copy for your own personal records. $10 dollars in today's money is nothing, but in volume adds up quickly, as do notarizing fees, and the hassle of scheduling a public notary etc.
Any family member can pull your scummy Uncle's marriage certificate(s) from all 50 states, but it's gonna cost you and it's going to take more than 15 minutes, which is a pretty good hurdle to prevent mass collection of records. It's not perfect, but I haven't seen a leaked db of marriage certificates leaked online, yet.
I think this is a good approach for many public records: add just the right amount of friction to the process. Just because a record is public doesn't mean it needs to be published in a readily accessible database.
I suppose they could also release future mug shots with a license that the images can't be distributed past such-and-such a date.