297
GDPR trap Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta wearers can be held liable (www.heise.de)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 month ago (8 children)

It's not only about sending data, it's also the fact that they're allowed to record without it being obvious. It needs to be unmistakable when it's recording

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    Why does it need to be obvious?

    In the US, everyone has the right to record what's happening in public. Private settings are different, of course.

    I know we're talking about Europe here but I'm genuinely curious how it improves things to make it "obvious" other than annoying legitimate users and doing nothing at all to people who actually want to record people in secret.

    Basically, it sounds like the pointless cookie warnings all over again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Because then you get a chance to control your image. It's a reminder that you're being recorded, assuming you're always recorded isn't practical. You're also at that point have the right to express your annoyance, perverts for example will get shamed immediately and in public.

    Forcing manufacturers too will help curb illegal recording in private places (offenders will have to work harder to hide the fact that they're recording)

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

    Always assume you're being recorded in public because you are. You're not even talking about that: You're talking about preventing normal citizens from being able to record in public. Yet government will still have that power. That's exactly what's going on with Flock cameras.

    You can regulate sales of hidden cameras in your country, but you can't stop their manufacture or general availability because they're literally designed to be undetectable. Anyone can buy them online and they always will be able to.

    I could design my own PCB with a tiny CCD and put together a case with whatever lens I want. In your scenario, would I require a license to order such a PCB? Like it's a gun or something?

    How would you even know that it's meant to be a camera for recording people? It could just be an environment monitoring sensor or a security device that sounds an alarm whenever it detects motion.

    You brought up the practicality of things... What you propose is highly impractical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    I'm advocating for making it obvious when someone is and preventing data processing of individuals without their consent (that includes google photos ML/face recognition).

    You can design and manufacture many illegal things and yet that's not common practice because if you get caught you'll get punished. E.g. you can make bombs at home and yet I don't see bombs being common outside.

    In the scenario where you want to make your own camera you'd need to e.g. have to have a bright red led when it records. Or the camera modules being sold will already have that. That's it. Hiding one would be get you fined if used. Today you can physically put a recording device in someone's home, that's entirely illegal where I live and yet people just don't do that.

    As for knowing you're always being recorded - unless you're a method actor or put in the effort you won't always keep that in mind the entire time you're outside. But I bet if a TV crew points their camera at you, you'll behave differently (or at least your awareness will change)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    phones are able to record without being obvious, so can gopros and security cameras. Should security cameras not be allowed to be hidden?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Phones - usually obvious but not obvious enough, so yes I am for making a big red undeniable record indicator. Cameras - they either show footage or take footage, so easier to understand. Security cameras - they usually put up a sign when you're entering a recorded zone, yeah we should make it obvious.

    Pre internet it was not interconnected, having it so easy to connect data gives too much power over people's lives. That makes the problem worse, but giving you a choice to chopse what you do and say when recorded is crucial in my opinion

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

    what about Tesla's anti-Theft cameras or dashcams that are obvious but inside of moving vehicles?

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

    If they're obviously recording that's fine. The other issue is data processing of the footage. If we lived in a world where 99% chance that footage is e2ee (i.e. in the control of the person) then I'm fine with it.

    If it's being automatically processed by e.g. advertising industry without my consent then that sucks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent