After being friends with public people, I got in the habit of asking people in pictures before I post, regardless of if they're on Instagram or not. And I NEVER post kid pictures. I find these rules should be obvious to most people. I'll even ask my wife first, who is always just about to post the same set of pictures I am. It's the decent thing to do.
Not the original commenter, but my friends are aware of my picture preferences (as in: get that camera out of my face). I always say "no", and most people I know are fine with that.
There are (or so I've been informed) some pictures of me on Facebook and Instagram. I don't have an account on either website so I can't see those pictures or even request to have them removed. Those were posted by the kind of older relatives who are impossible to educate on anything technology- (or consent-) related, and occasionally by friends-of-friends who snapped a pic while I was unawares.
Whenever I take a picture of anyone, I always ask first, and I never post them anywhere public. Feels like common decency to me, but there is obviously no such thing as universal common decency, so YMMV.
I take personal pride in how many of my friends have online avatars that are candid portraits that I took of them while we were out doing whatever, and I have had numerous people contact me and ask me to remove all of their photos. In the past sometimes it was "replace my name in the tags with a pseudonym" but now it's "remove them all." This all happened before AI took over, so you can imagine how relieved many of those people are in the age of deepfakes. Candid portraits are my favorite kind of photo to take, but sadly in the modern age, I've chosen to take down almost all of my portraits. I still have a self-hosted photo sharing software set up that I personally use to look through my collection and can share past memories with people, including lots of portraits I would have previously posted online, but I think most people and I have our guard up against AI crawlers. AI crawlers have made the web much more hostile than it was in the past.
I used to work for an assistive tech company that did part of this. For people who have degenerative diseases like ALS, we would create speech profiles for them before they lost their voice so that once they did, their computer-generated voice (through eye tracking software and hardware) would be their own and not a generic voice.
The SEC can pursue civil action for insider trading, but insider trading is also a criminal offense prosecuted by the various Attorneys General and investigate by law enforcement.
I'm not aware of any successful prosecutions for insider trading for members of Congress; the article does mention the FBI's investigations in the wake of COVID-19 that ended with prosecutors declining to make any charges.
I know you said /s, but are members of Congress legally "insiders" for companies? I'd think the simplest solution would be to write a law stating that they are, for any company they are writing laws about, considering writing laws about, etc.
I think they're insiders if they know something's about to happen the general public isn't privy to that will affect the market. I don't think you need to be part of a company to be an insider. For instance, you could be part of a regulatory board knowing you were about to open up restrictions on something that would enable a company to make money in a sector it was previously outlawed from and it would be only natural to invest in that company before the regulatory change went public.
Anyone who uses material non-public information to trade stocks is guilty of insider trading under current interpretations. If a member of Congress does so then they are also guilty. The question becomes whether you can prove this and whether a jury will convict on it; to date law enforcement has generally declined to prosecute these cases (as mentioned at the end of the article about COVID trading)
The SEC also requires that "insiders" make certain filings well in advance of trading stocks, but that is a separate issue.
