777
Women in Brussels 'filmed without their knowledge' by men wearing Meta smart glasses (www.brusselstimes.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
286 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 5 months ago (58 children)

I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 58 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.

    These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.

    They both need to go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Which is why I said neither of these should be acceptable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Which is why I said I completely agree. Just adding some context..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The cameras on poles can't see literally everywhere, and can't physically follow you around.

    And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.

    MetaCreepSpecs don't have any such restrictions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (40 children)

    Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.

    Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (28 children)

    They're not worse, but having yet another thing invading our privacy in public IS worse. No sense in giving up even more ground.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (26 children)

    There's degrees of privacy. People don't deserve to be recorded 24/7 just because they happen to be outside.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (20 children)

    Something being legal doesn't make it morally correct and the rest of us should oppose this shit in every way we can, not simply expect it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    creeps.

    the same creeps who can't understand what the problem is. creeps filming women and girls without permission or consent.

    creeps like you apparently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago* (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    if you don't understand the enormous implications on what that link means it's a lost discussion mate.

    creeps have always been creeps. why give them a better tool with higher resolution and plausible deniability?

    god it's like talking to a child

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Snapping a photo or video of your family or a landmark for your personal memories that happens to have some other people in the background is a hell of a lot different than sending a constant stream of everyone you're looking at along with location data to Facebook, Google, the government, and whoever the fuck else. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. And yes if you're going to be uploading someones image online I do think you should have their permission.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    You think Facebook smart glasses aren't sending the video anywhere? Their entire business model is harvesting data on people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    The same way smartphones do, either streaming it or by uploading to whatever cloud "backup" they're connected to. Again, I should not have to explain this to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (4 children)

    They factually are. Stop fucking lying. It to 10 seconds to look this up. https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/1384089832459749/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Unless these companies are offering some means for the rest of us to restrict smart glass wearers from filming whenever the fuck they want the only sane option is to treat them as if they are doing it all the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    No there aren't and I consider that to be a big problem. As I said before I don't think you should be allowed to put other people's images online without their consent. That said I can see when someone has a smartphone out and pointed at my face so I can tell them to stop filming me or move out of the frame. I cannot tell whether a pair of smart glasses are filming or not or even if they are smart glasses which makes them a bigger privacy issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Perhaps your future camera could automatically fog any individual that you haven't received prior consent from.

    And yes, I realise this idea has a number of technological requirements that may not exist yet, or cannot reliably exist ever, and requires the trusting of some authority in a world where noone of that esteem seem to be able to exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Difference being: we're kind of powerless against government surveillance high up on a fence, but we can sanction the class traitor glassholes with an accidental elbow to the glasses and a clumsy step on them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Seems like you’re giving a pass to government and corpos, while assaulting fellow citizens.

    I intend on getting whatever glasses eventually come out with an AR layer involved, camera or not. Doesn’t mean I’ll be constantly recording. In fact I’d likely almost never record anything.

    And apparently that means I deserve an elbow to the face.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    For AR you need to be recording. If you are recording, it is being sent to Facebook servers. You accepted Facebook's terms and conditions, not me.

    If you don't want to be punched, you should advocate for laws that make the glasshole glasses ugly through non-avoidable methods of detecting if the glasses are recording.

    For example by requiring every glass hole glass to have a physical cover that physically covers the view of the camera, and it should be a bright color to easily see if it is covering the camera or not. The contour of the camera should be painted with an equally bright color, contrasting highly with the cover. So you can easily see if the cover is covering it completely.

    A led that turns on when recording is not enough, it's very easy to remove a led from a device.

    If you want to not use glass hole glasses for evil, you should want it to be mandatory for other people to see if you're using it for evil or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    AR could never work by sending a recording to an external server. At least not with available technology. And in fact, you wouldn’t necessarily need to even have image data, lidar would suffice. All handled on device.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Calculating the AR locally doesn't mean that you won't be sending the recording to Facebook.

    They don't collect data because it is necessary for the technology they use. They collect data because they sell it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    No, I am not giving a pass to government and corpos. But people recording others in public are henchmen of the very same fascist governments and yes, you deserve an elbow to the face if you record ANYONE (in more detail than within a large group of pedestrians) in public EVER without their explicit consent. Because you are - at least in civilized countries - violating privacy laws with the expectation that no one will sue you for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    This is what I don't get either. We literally have dozens of various camera options monitoring us in public, from random video doorbells to store CCTV, state/police CCTV, Google Maps cars, people on their phones, police officers and even random hired security thugs posing around with wearable cameras, drones, you name it... but the problem is cameras built into glasses?

    Most European countries have actually codified that one has no expectations of privacy in public - that is, one may be recorded while out and about. Of course there's legislations about harassment - e.g. following someone with a camera and specifically recording them, in an attempt to harass or threaten them - and what essentially constitutes as blackmail ("I'll remove this video of you if you pay me"), so people should be using the recourse for those crimes, not criminalising a new product category.

    Just owning a camera didn't make upskirt photos legal, nor does using a Meta camera glass make harassment legal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Do you know the meaning of CCTV?
    Also yes, you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in public – within reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Legally, you don't.

    And while indeed CCTV used to mean that it's closed circuit, today it now refers simply to camera systems installed for public (in the sense of non-clandestine) surveillance purposes. Given most these systems are cloud connected, they're hardly closed circuit, right? Yet we still use the term.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)