Rendered at 23:31:51 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
palata 2 days ago [-]
> But the direction is clear, and it points at the camera. The obvious fixes are louder ones: a brighter light, an audible shutter, a clear signal when video is rolling.
I wouldn't trust those. Why would I?
The obvious fix is to remove the camera, period.
roryirvine 2 days ago [-]
The same technical fixes were proposed for cameraphones in the late 2000s - lights, shutter sounds, etc. Most phones in that era experimented with various implementations, but pretty much all of them were easily defeated.
As you say, the real solution is to make it socially unacceptable to use them in public places. The appropriate tools are banning and shunning, not lights and sounds.
sunrunner 2 days ago [-]
I believe regulations in Japan currently prevent disabling the camera shutter sound in order to combat privacy invading photos being taken, so this still happens in some places.
Of course, those devices aren't made by a company whose sole purpose is the total and utter destruction of privacy, which is where this idea perhaps breaks down for the Ray-Bans.
jolmg 19 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure the opposition is based on the company behind them.
Camera phones are probably accepted because you only pull it out when you can feel for the consent wherever it seems you're about to point the thing. With camera glasses, you're always pointing it right at the face of everyone you talk to.
I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
sunrunner 11 hours ago [-]
I feel like it can be both.
> I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
I agree somewhat, but I think it depends on the location as to how quickly people would react, and this kind of thing is almost expected in outdoor spaces, so the parameters seem different. Also, doing this with a camera phone needs intentionality from the person recording - they have to want to keep recording enough to keep doing it. Camera glasses just don't have that kind of friction, and it would be similarly easy to forget to stop them.
On the company side, while I think most people would expect that camera phone video does end up on social media eventually, it feels different when a company whose entire business is advertising and tracking is creating a product with passive, easy to forget and somewhat covert data collection.
marcoparisi 10 hours ago [-]
The difference between a phone and smart glasses is that someone filming with a phone in their hand is actually more noticeable than someone walking around a venue wearing smart glasses, which look like regular glasses.
The point is that, if they wanted to, someone could enter a venue wearing a brooch, a pendant, or some other item attached to their body that records video. If the object – whatever it may be – is not easily identifiable as a video-recording device, then the privacy violation is real regardless of the device.
The problem is that here we’re focusing on the device’s form factor rather than its purpose. It’s a bit like criticizing knives because they can kill, even though they’re used for cooking. The problem isn’t banning filming; it’s that such acts must be punishable by law. Similarly, facial recognition should be prohibited not only when used with glasses but for any type of recording, because it violates everyone’s privacy to help catch a few criminals. It’s disproportionately unfair and undermines the freedom of all of us.
biglyburrito 2 days ago [-]
Don't just ban them -- make the camera users legally liable for invasion of privacy.
marcoparisi 1 days ago [-]
The mass surveillance you don’t expect also involves trying to normalize privacy violations by shifting the Overton window.
Big Tech gets a twofold advantage from these smart glasses:
- They know in real time what you’re seeing, doing, and where you are
- They can see what other people are doing—even those who may not be on their platform
lostmsu 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
glaslong 1 days ago [-]
I wager the pubs prefer that security cameras were their cameras, under their control, for CCTV, which must also comply with GDPR and be signposted, not a bunch of random patrons with spy glasses?
I wouldn't trust those. Why would I?
The obvious fix is to remove the camera, period.
As you say, the real solution is to make it socially unacceptable to use them in public places. The appropriate tools are banning and shunning, not lights and sounds.
Of course, those devices aren't made by a company whose sole purpose is the total and utter destruction of privacy, which is where this idea perhaps breaks down for the Ray-Bans.
Camera phones are probably accepted because you only pull it out when you can feel for the consent wherever it seems you're about to point the thing. With camera glasses, you're always pointing it right at the face of everyone you talk to.
I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
> I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
I agree somewhat, but I think it depends on the location as to how quickly people would react, and this kind of thing is almost expected in outdoor spaces, so the parameters seem different. Also, doing this with a camera phone needs intentionality from the person recording - they have to want to keep recording enough to keep doing it. Camera glasses just don't have that kind of friction, and it would be similarly easy to forget to stop them.
On the company side, while I think most people would expect that camera phone video does end up on social media eventually, it feels different when a company whose entire business is advertising and tracking is creating a product with passive, easy to forget and somewhat covert data collection.
The point is that, if they wanted to, someone could enter a venue wearing a brooch, a pendant, or some other item attached to their body that records video. If the object – whatever it may be – is not easily identifiable as a video-recording device, then the privacy violation is real regardless of the device.
The problem is that here we’re focusing on the device’s form factor rather than its purpose. It’s a bit like criticizing knives because they can kill, even though they’re used for cooking. The problem isn’t banning filming; it’s that such acts must be punishable by law. Similarly, facial recognition should be prohibited not only when used with glasses but for any type of recording, because it violates everyone’s privacy to help catch a few criminals. It’s disproportionately unfair and undermines the freedom of all of us.
Big Tech gets a twofold advantage from these smart glasses: - They know in real time what you’re seeing, doing, and where you are - They can see what other people are doing—even those who may not be on their platform