PyLova
MadeInDex 📰🌎
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp61 Comments
Comments from other communities
Filming persons without their consent is not only BS, it’s illegal and punished with high fines, more if it goes online, even Google in it’s Street View is forced to blur faces and carplates for this reason.
Not in America.
that depends entirely on the situation. many states require consent for recordings, and more states have laws against voyeurism - https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 - where recording can be a felony.
stop acting like being in public = being a victim to the creeps.
Jessie what the fuck are you talking about?
- Consent for recording private conversations is when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. AKA NOT IN PUBLIC. In most cases having the conversation in a public place means you no longer need consent to record, even if the conversation is hushed or private otherwise.
- Voyeurism laws apply when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. AKA NOT IN PUBLIC. In fact it’s quite the opposite if you’re in public. instead of the voyeur being charged you would be charged with some form of indecent exposure or something worse.
Those protections don’t exist when the person being observed is in public. Because in America there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. There are very few exceptions to that by matter of law.
it’s really not that simple. I love how certain you are that you know what you’re talking about lol.
https://www.gotaprob.com/signals/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone-with-meta-glasses
https://www.recordinglaw.com/smart-glasses-recording-laws/
“Silent video in a public place is usually lawful because people there have no reasonable expectation of privacy. But capturing the audio of a private conversation is an interception under federal and state wiretap law. In an all-party-consent state, recording that conversation without everyone’s permission can be a crime even if you are standing in public.”
twelve states require two parties to consent.
re: voyeurism laws - where did you read that? because it’s STATED NOWHERE IN THE LAW. You can be hit with voyeurism for recording in public, if it violates those rules, that’s one of the reasons the law exists.
Ok, but security and traffic cams are not the same, they are restricted to certain areas, eg shops, ATM, etc., there it must be possible to identify the person. They are visible to everyone and avoidable because it, Smartglasses are not, same as you could’t use a hidden cam to cast everyone in the street or use a drone to film people in their houses through the window.
I think these glasses are bullshit.
I think recording people in public without their consent or knowledge is bullshit.
Using them makes you a douchebag/cunt.
That said, I really don’t understand the logic that says the act of recording or uploading videos makes someone a “data processor”.
As far as I can see the household exemption still applies if you are using data for personal use. If you’re uploading videos for some sort of gain then sure there’s an argument you could become a data controller maybe.
But, even so, even if you accept the argument that people become data controllers, as with cctv being used by private individuals on their houses, there is no practical way of enforcing or preventing it.
The point is that when using these glasses, the data is always uploaded to Meta’s servers. If the video feed was only processed and stored locally, I would buy the household exemption. But right now, by using the glasses you are forcing the personal data of the people around you to be processed and stored in a way that invokes GDPR, without the chance to consent.
Also, it isn’t clear that you’re filming them, when you wear those creep glasses.
Hell, you can’t even fly a consumer drone in Germany (or I assume the whole EU). Not because drones themselves are illegal (they aren’t), but because you must implicitly film people and property without their consent in order to operate the drone.
Funny how the website which have the article about GDPR does not let you reject all cookies without paying.
Agreed. Here we go: https://archive.vn/6eKHL
So downvote and move on, that’s what I do. there are likely other news outlets with the same story who respect you more.
Yet another reason why local AI models are so important.
You don’t need to be sending people’s faces to a super sketchy dossier-building company like Meta when you can just do face/object recognition locally on the device.
This tech can be life-changing for people who are visually impaired. I would hate to see it banned just because the first adopter is an evil corporation.
How about not scanning my face at all?
Don’t go out in public? Seems like you’re asking the impossible because a recording of any kind is a “face scan”.
So don’t record me? I’m not recording anyone when I’m outside. Can’t you do the same?
if the “news” can do something everyone should be able to do it.
When you’re out in public you’re in public! It’s literally the opposite of private.
Why would you expect to remain anonymous or private in such a situation?
Everyone has the right to record what’s going on, out in the open. You want to add shutter sounds and recording lights to cameras? Sure. That doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. But don’t go restricting people’s rights just because you think you’ll never have the need to record something happening right in front of you.
There’s a reason you’re not allowed to own or operate fucking MIRVs.
because the second amendment to the US constitution is too weak?
We already tested this with Google Glass and we called people like you glassholes. I can’t believe this has to be explained again.
Very American-coded take. In Europe you have the right to your personal data anywhere.
We don’t do “no expectation of privacy in public spaces”
Informational Self-Determination, is the term to search for if you’d like to learn more
I understand that. The way I see it is that the European style gives the government a monopoly on recording in public. That seems dangerous to me (an American).
I personally think it’s very important that everyone have the right to record people in public because I’ve seen people—in person—being intimidated by police to stop recording (them possibly committing a crime).
It’s a “WTF!” hands in the air situation. The police know that everyone’s allowed to record them but they just don’t care.
How does that work in Europe? You see someone committing a crime and you just keep your phone in your pocket? Because it’s against the law?
“Excuse me, sir… May I have your permission to record you beating this person to death? Thanks!”
I’m not really sure how that follows, they too are bound by the laws protecting the privacy of those being filmed. For instance license plate readers are not legal and had to be taken back down in places where regional governments put them up. I’m quite glad of this recently as more and more bad news regarding Flock and Palantir comes out.
The weighing of legal interests applies in such cases. The violent person may have a legal interest in their informational self determination, but the victim has a legal interest in being aided against the violence, even if it’s only by the indirect measure of creating proof, and the public also has a legal interest in the prosecution of crime. The latter two are weighed more highly that the former.
It’s the same fundamental idea as the smashing of other’s car windows being illegal, but becoming legal if it is committed during aiding people in mortal danger.
Regarding police: Courts have determined that the public has a superior right in keeping police in check, compared to the right of privacy of the involved officers. And thus filming them during operations is allowed. On the other hand just filming them when nothing is happening, or if they are eating their bread rolls on break is not allowed, because then their privacy is the only issue at play.
It makes things a little more difficult to determine, I admit. But then I think we see police pushing their boundaries either way. We had a case go to the Federal Court (of Switzerland, we’re also a Federation) recently where the police were taken down a peg, after one of them blocked a camera claiming the bystander had to follow his order to stop filming even though she was not interfering with their operation and simply documenting.
Or we can just not have these or AI and survive just as we have. We dont need screens strapped to our faces, we use them too much as it is.
There’s already options for visually impaired and we do not need AI sunglasses.
I have issues with face recognition. While I’m not face blind, I have issues with remembering faces. This also cascades into remembering information about people.
A local face matching system, that can flag pertinent facts to me would be life-changing.
I refuse to let the likes of meta data mine me however. I also don’t want to be in the same boat as the people currently abusing the glasses already.
If you took Metas glasses and removed all options to exfiltrate data from them, and run a local model on them - they would be a great tool! The issue is mainly where all that collected data gets sent - if it can’t send data (maybe allow web search using an API which only allows normal search terms, not stuff like BASE64 encoded data), then nearly all of the privacy issues go away, and they could still be really handy.
It is an active decision of Meta to make these things as invasive as they can get. We should demand better.
We could also go back to hunter-gatherer times and have a mortality rate in the thirties.
Technology and innovation arent inherently bad, especially if they have many potential uses. The problem arises when adding the human element of how its used.
On that front… right now I dont think a use case has been proven for wide use of a lot of recent technological innovations. They are investor (and/or pervert) bubbles that are liable to explode soon.
I cringe at the thought of blanket bans being seen as a solution instead of a temporary patch, as its really just trying to ban aspects of human culture without directly banning (or relearning) it. Which just means those awful aspects will just find another avenue and we end up playing whack-a-mole instead of actually trying to better the world.
do you not have kids / family that you care about?
how zealous are you to push this technology when it’s obviously got tremendous issues.
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
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.
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)
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.
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)
phones are able to record without being obvious, so can gopros and security cameras. Should security cameras not be allowed to be hidden?
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
what about Tesla’s anti-Theft cameras or dashcams that are obvious but inside of moving vehicles?
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.
I don’t want people scraping face ID data for personal use any more than I want Meta hoovering up that shit.
This tech could have been life changing if Meta had focused on that purpose instead of engineering perv glasses. Fuck no.
there is no practical difference. as someone going their way on the street, you have no way to figure out what is happening with the recording the camera takes. you cannot determine if its processed locally, uploaded right to a data broker, or if it is stored locally temporarily for it to be uploaded later.
Yep. And?
Just like today: You have no idea if that person has a hidden camera or a gun or anything else dangerous or what their intentions are.
I don’t think there’s a way to put the genie back in the bottle. You can probably buy some off Alibaba now.
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
IDK perverts are pretty determined in my experience
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.
Good point
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?
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)
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.
“I want people to be able to walk down the street without being recorded by perverts with hidden cameras.”
Does the EU not have freedom of the press or something?
Does the US?
Yes
What does this say
It says you’re an idiot.
https://youtu.be/6Lad7s-sLIU
Aww, how sweet!
I thought lobomization was banned but from this comment i can assume it’s not in the USA