667
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
667 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
59570 readers
3402 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I remember when Google glasses came out, people got assaulted for wearing them
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-woman-says-she-was-attacked-for-wearing-google-glass/
Her Facebook post 💀
Several bars in my city banned people wearing them.
Venues will just need to implement infrared checks at the door.
A simple solution would be to have a red led that displays when recording like video cameras
The fix for that is a Sharpie or electrical tape, like all other LED's you want to hide.
IANAL
Aren't there laws about being recorded without permission?
Any evidence gained by illegal means is inadmissible?
Depends on where you are I think
The Meta smart glasses have a LED, and they claim to detect when it's covered and asked the user to clear it (not activating the camera) when it's the case.
But honestly, there are already devices to record people without their consent. Just go to AliExpress and you'll find devices that don't even bother adding a LED (because the whole point of the device is stealth filming).
They have lights that pulse around each of the cameras when turned on. Seems like a good enough indicator to me
Next up: a bunch of facebook.posts on how to kill the recording.lights without damaging the glasses...
Pretty sure these have that
The trick is now you can’t tell. Should it be illegal? Heck yes. Will it? “Hmm … technology, so important … innovation.. privacy is dead anyway …. terrorism prevention.. “
In the US, it's been long held people do not have the "expectation of privacy" while out in public. One of the major issues that you've kinda touched on is how would it be enforced? So are you opposed to all forms of recording? Or is this more focused on a corporation potentially gathering data on people just by being in public where someone is wearing these?
IMO expectation of privacy is valid, but I believe people should also have the right to reasonably know if they're being recorded. Recording people in public's one thing if you have your phone out and are waving it around pointing it at people, but it's a whole other thing if it's a concealed or otherwise hidden recording device.
Ring doorbells, and the like, are everywhere. Hell, I had a bear cruise in the dog door a couple of years ago. Neighbors produced security cam pics and I had no clue they had cameras!
At this point, we might as well assume we're being recorded the moment we step out our front door.
I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we're out in public? And what would "knowing that you're being recorded" consist of? Like if there's a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don't see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says "cameras in use" is that enough? It's just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there's really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it's range in public.
When I say to "reasonably know", I don't mean everyone must be aware, but moreso that if you look around, not looking for cameras necessarily, you should notice it. The "reasonable person" standard is one that's commonly used in law, to describe the nature of something, even if the letter of it isn't necessarily true.
That said, assuming we're talking American law, this would all come down to case law anyways. A majority of American law isn't what's on the books, but what's worked out in court rooms across the country based on written legislation. Judges end up hashing out what the written law actually intends to mean (or in many cases what it should intend).
For my personal standards, I don't think even a sign is necessary. So long as it's in plain sight. Phone cameras are largely identifiable by the manner in which people hold their phones when recording others, so that would also be something I'd consider passing this "reasonable person" standard. Cameras built into pens and sunglasses though are very obviously intended to be concealed, and as such wouldn't without there being other ways to identify it; such as if it was told to those who'd be in range of the lens that they'd be recorded by this device.
There'd definitely be a lot of back and forth to hash out appropriate legislation, but I think it's very doable without significantly impacting the daily lives of people today.
I just kind of assume my phone is going to give out more information than a camera ever could, so the very least those companies can do is give me access to that data.
There's a difference between "on apple's servers" and "a million people harassing you after being pulled into a Livestream against your will" though.
Both are bad, one is worse.
It's only valid in private venues. We don't know when were being recorded now and have not really known for decades. This isn't going to change anything on that front.
But something to detect their emissions etc in private venues would be a good idea. That or deployable jamming for Bluetooth and WiFi etc on site.
Ya, and I think that's something that should change. I should have the right to, within reason, be able to know I'm being recorded at any time.
I think we're getting to the point where "expectation of privacy" and "expectation of not being uploaded" need to be separated.
I fully agree with the idea that there should be no expectation of privacy in public, but I also don't think filming some random person and posting them online should be carte blanche allowed.
At the time it made sense. But laws need to change with the times. In the future you'll have people wearing these shitty glasses with cameras all around you all day every day cataloging your movements and entering them into giant corporate data centers. Something needs to change.
The problem is you won't know you're being recorded in private either.
Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.
Why should it be illegal?
It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public. You’re in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance.
Sure some weirdos might I use it for nefarious reasons but if it didn’t exist they would still be weirdos using something else.
People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record. Places where you would not be allowed to hold up your phone or camera and take photos.
The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you demands a change to the legal framework. It doesn't make sense to hold to laws that were written for an entirely different scenario.
I've seen that fairly often, particularly around political protests, and I've never seen a CCTV camera in a public bathroom, locker room, etc.
This tech is an inevitability and the potential legitimate uses are too valuable to ban it outright. But that doesn't mean it should be treated exactly like a highly-visible camera or cell phone.
VERY solid point.
This isn't new tech though. I can record on the down-low now and have been able to for some time.
People attacking Glasses users are ignorant of this fact.
Depends on your legislation.
Here it's the other way round.
Right, definitely not the same everywhere in the world. Where exactly is "here" that you're referring to?
That's Germany.
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN
How would banning these be enforceable though? They are only going to get more discreet, they will eventually appear completely indistinguishable from regular glasses.
There are certain ways to detect cameras, such as monitoring for infrared, but that would not work for all camera tech and could be hard to triangulate to exact people in crowded areas. There are also ways to detect electronic devices on a person but doing so could quickly become just as invasive in other ways.
Everything old is new again
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/14/glasshole
What will be the new name for Glassholes in the Meta era?