this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
662 points (92.8% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
3661 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’::These stylish shades may look like a regular pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but they're actually Meta's new Smart Glasses, complete with two tiny cameras and speakers implanted in the arms. The wearable tech was unveiled by Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday at the 2023 Meta Connect conference in Menlo Park, California, sparking a frenzy online.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why should it be illegal?

It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public. You’re in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance.

Sure some weirdos might I use it for nefarious reasons but if it didn’t exist they would still be weirdos using something else.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record. Places where you would not be allowed to hold up your phone or camera and take photos.

The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you demands a change to the legal framework. It doesn't make sense to hold to laws that were written for an entirely different scenario.

I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance

I've seen that fairly often, particularly around political protests, and I've never seen a CCTV camera in a public bathroom, locker room, etc.

This tech is an inevitability and the potential legitimate uses are too valuable to ban it outright. But that doesn't mean it should be treated exactly like a highly-visible camera or cell phone.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record.

VERY solid point.

The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you

This isn't new tech though. I can record on the down-low now and have been able to for some time.

People attacking Glasses users are ignorant of this fact.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Primate bionic eye implants exist. Consider a future where they are good and look exactly like regular eyes.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public.

Depends on your legislation.

Here it's the other way round.

[–] ilmagico@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right, definitely not the same everywhere in the world. Where exactly is "here" that you're referring to?

Where is here?

I’m in the UK and it’s legal.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Which 3rd world country? Otherwise you got Brazil (is in some places), Spain, and Switzerland (Gotta love fascist money, money laundering, and nazi gold).

https://www.bobbooks.co.uk/blog-post/10-places-around-the-world-where-photography-is-banned

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

[–] homoludens@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Germany for example. Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It's more of a "it really depends" kind of situation, and people might even have the right to defend themselves if you take pictures of them illegally. German source

Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It's more of a "it really depends" kind of situation,

Those are the same things said in different ways lol. Alas, I cannot speak German.

[–] 2Xtreme21@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty sure there are at least some limitations to that. In a public toilet for instance…

The key is the phrasing reasonable expectation of privacy.

A bathroom is such a place where you would reasonably expect privacy.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Ok, now you and I are in a private place. Say, a bar. How do I know you're not recording me?

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A bar, where the public congregates, sounds like a public place (and would be considered so in my country).

[–] khepri@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that's what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren't publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that "pub" literally means "public" but they aren't owned by some government entity, you don't have a "right" to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can't take place there are set by the private owners.

[–] ilmagico@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Which country exactly?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A bar is privately-owned. How is it a public place?

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's "public". But that would be the same as filming you in your own house. If it's a friend you invited over, they could record you and it's on you to indicate your opposition and kick them out/trespass them should they refuse to comply.

Now in the private bar, the other patrons are allowed to be there and there's no law prohibiting them from recording (excepting places like a bathroom of course). If the bar tells them not to record, they can comply or be asked to leave. If the bar doesn't tell them to leave, it's on you to leave. Consider if a nazi walked into the bar. They have the right to be a nazi and go to bars. Bars have the right to refuse or provide service to whomever (so long as it doesn't target a protected class). You have no more right to be at the bar than the nazi or person filming (absent some other condition like the bar telling them to leave).

Tl:Dr - it's not public in the legal sense. However civil law takes over.

[–] ilmagico@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I guess you're speaking for the USA, or whatever country you live in, but @ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world seemed to speak about a different (unspecified) country. We're left to guess which country...

(also, Godwin's law still applies lol)

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

US. Yes. I can't speak for other countries.

[–] IthronMorn@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you know my phone isn't just recording you? Doesn't even have to really be pointing at you to grab audio or perhaps you even in the corner of the frame?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I don't, but it's far more likely for me to catch you doing it that way than with glasses.

[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The bar is a public place in that they allow in the public. You have no expectation of privacy there.

However the bar owner as the owner can explicitly ban photography and that’s fine it’s their bar , but they have to explicitly let people know the rules.

You ever been to a bar or a club? People are talking photos everywhere lol

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Point of clarification. It's not "public" in the legal sense. Might be why you're catching some downvotes. The rest of it is pretty much on point.

Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps my wording was poor but I’m not sure why people don’t realise that not all places the public go are public so in those places the rules are set up by the owner.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you ever been to a theater? Taking photos is banned despite allowing in the public. Please explain.

Again. The theatre owners set the rules.

The same as your bar example. If you owned a building or business then you can set the rules or make people leave.