>So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet

This argument is so poorly formed I almost believe it's in bad faith.

Both you and I know that a stalker wouldn't do that. People tend to congregate their online behaviors in a very small circle of sites based upon their physical locations, I'm not going to index files in Japan to find someone in Iowa. Digital footprints are both large and small at the same time.

> when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables

Because it's risky and time consuming to be there in person. In fact it's even easier to setup a camera in said neighborhoods and have software track users behavior then to sit around there yourself.

> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim?

Stalkers often have knowledge of the victim’s friends and associates and have no problem combing through their social media looking for photos.

> Someone that determined would just hire or use the methods of a PI, which have long been effective at finding people who don’t want to be found.

PIs will not do work for people without a legitimate purpose, as they could lose their license. Stalkers with ill intent will also be leaving a paper trail if they hire a PI. And non-PIs may be able to use some PI methods, but they won’t be able to access the full range of PI tools or PI relationships.

> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim

Or use an image search engine that does facial recognition. Already exist, and likely to become more common.

> Why would a criminal take time to comb through random, anonymous, uncategorized images of people to ambiguously identify someone who might not be home (and might not even have a house worth breaking into), when it’s much easier to just stake out wealthy neighborhoods and definitively see who’s not home and who has unsecured valuables, as has been done for centuries?

Knowing your target's movements and schedule has also been an integral part of crime since forever. Also, you are again focusing on the generic - the goal being hitting any wealthy target, not this particular target.

> So said stalker would have to run facial recognition software on every image on the internet to find the handful that might incidentally contain their victim? Someone that determined would just hire or use the methods of a PI, which have long been effective at finding people who don’t want to be found.

Maybe they know their target likes airsoft but, probably due to the stalking, has changed locations to try and get away. Looking at the few local airsoft places is probably way cheaper than hiring a PI. Can one easily hire a PI for stalking purposes, anyway? Seems like an industry that has some strong regulations but I don't really know.

Besides, you don't need to worry about things like a PI or finding random images if, for example, a friend or acquaintance in your group posts a lot. The stalker need only find that one person to keep an eye on their target - a very common tactic by abusers, by the by: being aware of your target's social circle and using it to keep tabs on them.

This also seems to focus on the physical aspect of it, as if getting attacked/kidnapped is the only possible result, but constantly getting messages like "Looks like you had fun at X" from an abuser can cause harm too.

> The solution here is to regulate what Google et al. can do with your data, not regulate what people can post online.

There are 2 separate issues. Should we regulate what people can post online? And should we expect people to respect our privacy, even if they're not legally required to? One is a legal question, the other is social/cultural.