Augmented Reality, Diminished Privacy, Increased Conflict?

The new “augmented reality” game Pokemon Go has in a few days more downloads than Tindr. Perhaps the age range of the players is wider.

In any event, to augment your reality, the makers (a spinoff from Google) want a LOT of personal information. TechCrunch has the story, or one version of it. Is the reason that the game is not yet available in Canada our privacy laws, notably PIPEDA, which requires (as well as informed consent) that the collection, use and disclosure of PII be reasonable? Can the game maker justify the extent of the information collected by the functions of the game? Could a readable privacy policy cover all the implications in a manageable space?

It’s one thing to convert a place, often a public place, into a world in which you play your game. What happens when a lot of game makers send their players to the same space, to perform incompatible actions there? Brian Wassom speculates. Do you agree with him that the law should not prohibit the use of public spaces for such games? Should the use be regulated? How? Or do we wait until some gamers playing different games come to blows, or worse?

Will civil liability be enough to regulate what game makers induce their users to do? What is reasonably foreseeable?

How do your clients intend to augment their customers’ reality?

Comments are closed.