3 ms·
There is no substantial difference, but the glasses hide it better and therefore have more nefarious uses. Making pictures of someone without consent is prohibi
by 13415 5y ago
There is no substantial difference, but the glasses hide it better and therefore have more nefarious uses. Making pictures of someone without consent is prohibited by law in most European countries (Edit: Not quite right, only in some), and people will react negatively if you try to do it.
Glasses that looked almost identical to these Ray Bans used to be available from Chinese wholesale sellers. It has always been hard for me to imagine them getting used by anyone else than creeps for making pictures of women on the beach, etc. Just because they're Ray Ban doesn't suddenly make them noble, on the contrary the resolution is probably higher, which makes these even more problematic spyware.
- ojbyrne 5y agoTaking pictures of someone without consent is generally legal in Europe, publishing them is generally not. There’s a bunch of discussion on the web, this seems authoritative: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi...
- 13415 5y agoIt seems you're right, the link you give looks credible to me. I'm from Germany living in Portugal and in both countries the default is "No, it's not allowed (but with exceptions)", so that explains my wrong generalization. That it's allowed in other countries makes these glasses much worse, as it probably also means you have less legal options against their use (and the equivalent uses of phones). I'm a bit astonished, too. I wonder how people deal with creeps in those countries who film and photograph women without their consent on the beach, etc. After all, that's the primary use case for such spyware devices, which used to be available online long before Facebook and Ray Ban suggested them.