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
[–] 11 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Regulation can, what makes this so unique? You buy something from e.g. Alibaba and use it illegally - if you get caught you're screwed. That's enough to scare most people

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

    IDK perverts are pretty determined in my experience

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

    Not just perverts. Women have repeatedly caught police stalking them with hidden cameras. Journalists have caught police committing all sorts of crimes with hidden cameras.

    Here in my home town, someone caught a local business trying to extort them with a hidden camera.

    You'd think that with the possibility of hidden cameras being anywhere, evildoers would be a bit more careful. Nope!

    Instead, they're trying to be the ones controlling all the cameras and secret surveillance. If they're the only ones that are legally allowed to secretly record people, then what you've got is a much more powerful police state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Let me take a moment to state a universal truth: There's no such thing as "too much regulation." There's just good regulation and bad regulation.

    Want to regulate a category of technology that covers, "glasses with built-in cameras"? Ok! We'll just mount the camera somewhere else.

    Or perhaps you want to regulate cameras that have lenses too small to notice from say, a dozen paces? Well, that would ban cameras on smartphones.

    Why not ban strapping smartphones to your head while you're at it? That's basically what these glasses are, after all.

    Tell us: What, specific regulations would you be looking for?

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

    Tell us: What, specific regulations would you be looking for?

    I want people to have the ability to walk down the street without some fuckass with a camera, hidden or otherwise taking a live recording of them without thwir explicit consent, FOR ANY REASON.

    Thats it.

    It was bad enough when these people would walk around waving their phone cameras at everything while they were tourists or wanna be 'influencers', now these companies are making it harder to pick them out of the crowd (though those glasses are very distinctly ugly)

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

    I can't accept a world like this. No one has a right to privacy when out in public and especially not police who are on duty or government figures.

    You're just asking for a brutal police state with that attitude.

    Note: Recording != Logging everything into a database. That's an entirely separate issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •