Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’::These stylish shades may look like a regular pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but they’re actually Meta’s new Smart Glasses, complete with two tiny cameras and speakers implanted in the arms. The wearable tech was unveiled by Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday at the 2023 Meta Connect conference in Menlo Park, California, sparking a frenzy online.
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.
Ah true, I totally forgot about those.
God I don’t like our current timeline 😔
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
It would be a nice to have. But there is no realistic way to do that. It is an unreasonable request. At any point in time when you are outside you are being observed by any number of satellites. Through any number of windows. From all number of arbitrary distances. You may as well request omniscience. Since you have an equal chance of obtaining it.
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.
Also in the US, there has been this bizarre expectation that “if it’s illegal, it will go away”, which is how we have this shitty War on (some) Drugs, “assault” “weapon” bans, and people thinking that we have to completely outlaw AI.
The tech is here. It’s going to be legal. We just have to figure out how to deal with it.
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.
Primate bionic eye implants exist. Consider a future where they are good and look exactly like regular eyes.
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.
Over there
Where is here?
I’m in the UK and it’s legal.
Which 3rd world country? Otherwise you got Brazil (is in some places), Spain, and Switzerland (Gotta love fascist money, money laundering, and nazi gold).
https://www.bobbooks.co.uk/blog-post/10-places-around-the-world-where-photography-is-banned
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements
Germany for example. Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It’s more of a “it really depends” kind of situation, and people might even have the right to defend themselves if you take pictures of them illegally. German source
Those are the same things said in different ways lol. Alas, I cannot speak German.
Pretty sure there are at least some limitations to that. In a public toilet for instance…
The key is the phrasing reasonable expectation of privacy.
A bathroom is such a place where you would reasonably expect privacy.
Ok, now you and I are in a private place. Say, a bar. How do I know you’re not recording me?
A bar, where the public congregates, sounds like a public place (and would be considered so in my country).
I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that’s what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren’t publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that “pub” literally means “public” but they aren’t owned by some government entity, you don’t have a “right” to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can’t take place there are set by the private owners.
Which country exactly?
A bar is privately-owned. How is it a public place?
It’s “public”. But that would be the same as filming you in your own house. If it’s a friend you invited over, they could record you and it’s on you to indicate your opposition and kick them out/trespass them should they refuse to comply.
Now in the private bar, the other patrons are allowed to be there and there’s no law prohibiting them from recording (excepting places like a bathroom of course). If the bar tells them not to record, they can comply or be asked to leave. If the bar doesn’t tell them to leave, it’s on you to leave. Consider if a nazi walked into the bar. They have the right to be a nazi and go to bars. Bars have the right to refuse or provide service to whomever (so long as it doesn’t target a protected class). You have no more right to be at the bar than the nazi or person filming (absent some other condition like the bar telling them to leave).
Tl:Dr - it’s not public in the legal sense. However civil law takes over.
I guess you’re speaking for the USA, or whatever country you live in, but @ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world seemed to speak about a different (unspecified) country. We’re left to guess which country…
(also, Godwin’s law still applies lol)
US. Yes. I can’t speak for other countries.
The bar is a public place in that they allow in the public. You have no expectation of privacy there.
However the bar owner as the owner can explicitly ban photography and that’s fine it’s their bar , but they have to explicitly let people know the rules.
You ever been to a bar or a club? People are talking photos everywhere lol
Point of clarification. It’s not “public” in the legal sense. Might be why you’re catching some downvotes. The rest of it is pretty much on point.
Thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps my wording was poor but I’m not sure why people don’t realise that not all places the public go are public so in those places the rules are set up by the owner.
Have you ever been to a theater? Taking photos is banned despite allowing in the public. Please explain.
Again. The theatre owners set the rules.
The same as your bar example. If you owned a building or business then you can set the rules or make people leave.
How do you know my phone isn’t just recording you? Doesn’t even have to really be pointing at you to grab audio or perhaps you even in the corner of the frame?
I don’t, but it’s far more likely for me to catch you doing it that way than with glasses.
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.
You don’t need the ban to be perfect. Especially if you go after manufacturers, not users. Make it harder for people to do uncouth things. Accessibility is a huge driver of people using things. You might not be able to stop everyone, but you can stop the majority of people.
Thermal cameras are surprisingly good at detecting things that use power. Defeat the camera with another camera 😉
Why should be illegal!?
I think some cameras will “pop out” on your screen if you take a picture of them, right?
What a shitty future ahead of us. “Why are you taking a picture of me?!” “Because you’re wearing some suspicious glasses and I want to make sure that you are not recording me. Yup. There they are.”
Edit: well, after seeing some pictures, you can still tell that the cameras are there. But you have to be looking for them, which is still shitty.
That’s only if it sends infrared signal (for example it has night vision). I don’t think anything will show up with these.
Oh… oh, well.