6 ms·
“Wearing it in public has, however, often brought me grief—usually from people objecting to what they think is a head-mounted video recorder.” I think there is
by ilamont 3y ago
“Wearing it in public has, however, often brought me grief—usually from people objecting to what they think is a head-mounted video recorder.”
I think there is a shift in the public mindset about public and sometimes private spaces being under constant video surveillance. I am conscious of this every time I walk by one of my neighbors’ homes as many are using doorbell cameras, or other similar security systems facing the street. Practically every store and train station has multiple cameras.
In some countries the cameras are even more pervasive. For instance, the PRC government has gone full Big Brother, using cameras and facial recognition to track and control behavior.
Moreover, not only does every adult and many children carry a high-quality video camera in their pocket, they are becoming more comfortable using them to take video of what they’re seeing around them.
For these reasons, I believe if Google Glass were released today instead of 10 years ago, the reaction would be less hostile. I would be curious to know the author’s recent experience wearing DIY headsets and the public’s reactions/suspicions regarding video recording.
- golergka 3y agoI don't understand why would a person have a right to see something and remember it, but not record it. (Using this recording for various purposes is a while different issue though).
- episteme 3y agoIf there was a way to be sure it would stay only ever being viewed by that person, sure. For now, I think people shouldn't have the risk that it gets seen by others forced upon them.
- cfiggers 3y agoThere's an objective asymmetry to it. The person who has a flawless recording of what happened has options that the person who has a lossy recording of what happened (i.e. the one in their head) does not have. If everyone is on the same playing field (as in, neither have a recording or both have it) then it seems to me the objection is greatly lessened—it's when one party records and the other party doesn't have access to it that there's some sense of unfairness.
- golergka 3y agoGreat. Let's break this asymmetry by making AR devices ubiquitous and giving most people those recordings. Would also help with police problems in many countries.
- cfiggers 3y agoThat definitely seems like a way to address at least this one part of what seems to bother people about omnipresent technological observation of everyone everywhere all the time, yes. :)
- JohnFen 3y agoSurveillance has already made being in public spaces unpleasant enough to prevent me from taking part in many things that I would otherwise enjoy taking part in. More of it just makes my world smaller and smaller.
- pmoriarty 3y agoI've kind of given up on expecting most people to be rational on emotionally charged subjects. Most people don't think things through, and the more intense the emotion involved the less likely there's any chance of reasoning with them. Highly emotionally charged attitudes commonly held in society may change, but it'll probably take generations to do so.
- scandox 3y agoPeople have kind of figured out that an appearance of calm, rationalism may also conceal extremely strong feelings. One has to have an open mind. It's not inherently more rational to calmly accept all social changes brought on by technology.
- pmoriarty 3y agoIf everyone could just calmly discuss divisive topics instead of freaking out or resorting to violence, the world would be a much better place.
- JohnFen 3y ago"You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- (who knows? This quote is attributed to lots of people)
- lrhegeba 3y agoi suppose for the same reason you cannot prohibit breathing, it is a biological fact to be considered when drafting regulations. rules without being able to enforce them would show the governing body as weak and clueless, undermining its authority. a rather big no-no for most "powers". rest assured when more people wear AR-type glasses they sure as hell will inject "rules" in the software to control/limit what you see. to protect of course
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoYour parenthetical point IS the point. I can see people in a washroom at the urinals but there's obvious reasons I can't record it.
- coldtea 3y ago>I don't understand why would a person have a right to see something and remember it, but not record it Perhaps because you miss the notion of quantitative and qualitative difference.
- escapedmoose 3y agoMy concern isn’t that I’ll be seen by one person, but that the recording will be shared with innumerable others.
- pmoriarty 3y agoPeople have a strange relationship to surveillance. Many of them will freak out when they see another person point a camera at them, but they don't seem to care that dozens if not hundreds of surveillance cameras film them every day when they walk around a city. Out of sight, out of mind.
- growse 3y agoIt's because perception of intent matters. Someone actively pointing a camera at you is perceived as an aggressive, hostile thing. People get immediately defensive. A static CCTV camera wasn't installed to video you in particular, so therefore people are more accepting.
- galleywest200 3y agoDepends on the location of the camera. Three went up on the street near me, since its by a high school and I guess they monitor traffic or something. But it can clearly see into private yards and it does offend me. If I lived nearer to the cameras and was impacted I would try to ensure my bits and tackle were visible to the cameras from my bathroom window every day.
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoIt's pretty obvious why that is, don't you think? Surveillance cameras are targeting everyone in the space equally. A person pointing a camera at you is targeting you specifically. Of course that causes a different reaction.
- mmh0000 3y agomany years ago, there used to be a dude who went by Mr. surveillance man. He’d walk around with a camera just recording random people on the street and it caused a big sensation. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9sVqKFkjiY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9sVqKFkjiY
- alexvoda 3y agoI would even endorse personal recording as an act of SOUSveillance. A subversive reverse surveillance. We have to become the ones who watch the watchers.
- ElFitz 3y agoEven better. French Senate has recently approved a bill authorising remote activation of smartphones’ real-time geolocation, cameras, and microphones [1]. Obviously without informing owners. And while it is, obviously, only to be used to fight against terrorism, organised crime and delinquency, well… let’s just say that France has a history of such powers getting extrajudicially abused, by governments and individuals alike. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36240885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36240885
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 3y agoAmong other things, France called "terrorism" people fighting (including peacefully) to free their countries from being its colonies. Which they still maintain a fair number of. Now they prosecute people demonstrating against a hugely unpopular government.
- ElFitz 3y agoToday one doesn’t even need to even intend to do something to be accused of such things [1]. > Following the pattern of the so-called Tarnac affair, their arrest was accompanied by timely leaks in the media, and even political manipulations condemning the "far-left". And this, on the grounds that they were "suspected of planning violent actions targeting police officers, without a specific plan of action being identified," as reported by Le Monde nonetheless. [1] (French): https://www.nextinpact.com/article/71826/accuses-terrorisme-pour-avoir-utilise-messageries-chiffrees-linux-eos-tor-et-tails-12 https://www.nextinpact.com/article/71826/accuses-terrorisme-...
- akomtu 3y agoA few centuries ago the French gov would say it was fighting heresy. Today they are supposedly fighting terrorism. A few centuries later they'll be fighting oldthinkers.
- throw_m239339 3y ago> “Wearing it in public has, however, often brought me grief—usually from people objecting to what they think is a head-mounted video recorder.” Yes, I remember that guy getting mugged by Mc Donald security in France, at the Champs Elysée, which doesn't surprise me given how dumb and ignorant these people are, since they are recruited among gangs... an absolutely shame for France.
- ilamont 3y agoI recall a French law restricting photographing people in public without permission. I saw it on a photography forum, not sure if it was accurate.
- ghaff 3y agoThis [1] claims that street photography in general is allowed. As with some other jurisdictions in Europe, you're often not allowed to publish the photos anywhere. Obviously in today's world, that's a law that is pretty much broken continuously. [1] https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-france https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-franc...
- xeonmc 3y agoAnd his way of getting back at them is to publish an entire theory framework on surveillance asymmetry, gets widely cited, purely so that he could use McDonalds as the punchline[0] [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/McVeillance https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/McVeillance
- coldtea 3y agoSorry, I'm with them on this... I don't want some guy recording me when I eat in a restaurant. In France, they want that even less. I'd prefer McDonalds itself didn't have cameras either. But at least those are for anti-theft purposes.
- throw_m239339 3y agoSure, I understand 100%, but they didn't have to beat the guy and break his gear, security tried to remove his gear by force...
- BryantD 3y agoI can’t find anything recent but it’s a topic he’s thought a lot about over the years: http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-sousveillance-scenarios.html?m=1 http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-sousveillance-scenari...