4 ms·

Interesting idea. It seems to me that most things which would need to be protected from hidden cameras would be stationary and not require the operator to mount

Interesting idea. It seems to me that most things which would need to be protected from hidden cameras would be stationary and not require the operator to mount the detectors on his body, but starting with mobile constraints is often helpful. I would like to draw attention to this gem of wit, easily the best I've seen in a long time: > I think the idea behind this approach is sound (actually it's light)

_ache_ 11mo ago
I agree, I laugh out loud at that pun.
anilakar 11mo ago
> most things which would need to be protected from hidden cameras would be stationary Counter-sniper systems that scan for reflections from optics have existed for twenty years already. These are indeed meant for static operation in military bases and other fixed installations.
arionmiles 11mo ago
Isn't the biggest mobile use case where you don't want to be secretly recorded in public? This was a big concern with the original Google Glass.
- littlestymaar 11mo ago
  The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed. But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own.
  - lukan 11mo ago
    "But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own." It will need both. Secretly recording in the public is already prohibited in many if not most jurisdictions, but ad far as I know, not really prosecuted.
  - hackingonempty 11mo ago
    In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.
    - ajsnigrutin 11mo ago
      In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".
      - circuit10 11mo ago
        You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
        Short answer is its complicated and will vary from member state to member state. My parental unit had a dispute with neighbor over where his camera is pointed and filed some motion to see what he does with it ( 'not making a database' part ), but the law was mostly toothless as the enforcement of it lacked. On the other hand, the dispute part of the real estate was handed real toot sweet, because everyone and their mother cares about outcomes in those. tldr: I wish I could tell you there is a simple tldr
        jorvi 11mo ago
        > toot sweet Not sure if intentional but just in case: the usual term is "tout de suite"
        tomalpha 11mo ago
        It might be in the original French, but it’s been anglicised and adopted as an English language term: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/toot-sweet_adv?tl=true https://www.oed.com/dictionary/toot-sweet_adv?tl=true
  - brador 11mo ago
    The kinetic solution starts at misdemeanour.
  - throwaway808081 11mo ago
    Do not expect this from the UK. That fight despite millions of signatures was batted down: The UK is introducing passed legislation that citizens' digital IDs are owned by a Google or Apple smartphone. The UK already have such laws active and in force that company directors must submit their information through an app available only from Google or Apple. It is clear 'digital IDs' will go the same way. It's not about age or attribute verification. It's about tracking. Which Google excel at, the only alternative Apple and their opt-in. Governments are quite happy making citizens have megacorps track their lives.
    - graemep 11mo ago
      Digital ID legislation has not been introduced. Company directors do not have to use the app. The app is one of three ways of doing it.
  - alexfoo 11mo ago
    > The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed. That's very similar to the basis of _The Circle_ by Dave Eggers.
    - dotancohen 11mo ago
      It's not only personal advertisements for consumerism. It's also personalized political messages. That is dangerous to the nations and states and their citizens.
  - jeroenhd 11mo ago
    So Ring doorbells and networked CCTV? We're there already. Billboards alongside roads containing targeted advertising already exist, too. I'm not too fussed about the advertisers in this aspect. The people these companies sell data too not meant for advertising are much more dangerous. That includes the government.
  - merely-unlikely 11mo ago
    Corporations don't need cameras to track people, they have had the ability to track bluetooth emissions for well over a decade. Unless you turn off a lot of connectivity settings, smartphones are pretty much open tracking devices. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluetooth-wireless-tracking-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...
- fennecfoxy 11mo ago
  If I want to record you, you'd never know. https://www.dpreview.com/news/4272574802/omnivision-has-created-the-world-s-smallest-commercially-available-image-sensor https://www.dpreview.com/news/4272574802/omnivision-has-crea... So all the people blathering about camera in public have a moot point. All the whining does is prevent the fairly obvious camera being put into devices. But if someone wants to record you in public otherwise, they will and there's nothing you or any of us can do about it.
  - probably_wrong 11mo ago
    The thing is, every beginner lockpicker makes a similar point when they realize how easy most locks are: "what's the point of locking my door if anyone can easily get in anyway?". I think the same answers apply here: because making it harder to be casually recorded sends a clear signal that you don't want it, and now the act of recording goes from being an oversight to a deliberate, sometimes punishable act.
    - somethingsome 11mo ago
      It becomes an oversight to a deliberate act only if the recording person knows that he was detected. So that means that your anti recording glasses should signal 'no recording' in some way. Otherwise it's not really useful.. But at that point.. You can just stick a qrcode on you with the message 'no recording please look away from me'.
      - arionmiles 11mo ago
        I think people are getting lost in the weeds here. The idea with detection is not to prevent public recording, it's to _know_ you're being recorded so you can act accordingly.
    - astura 11mo ago
      >The thing is, every beginner lockpicker makes a similar point when they realize how easy most locks are: "what's the point of locking my door if anyone can easily get in anyway?". No they don't. I'm a beginner lockpicker and so far I've only been able pick a 2 pin lock once. Have not been able to repeat it. Have not been able to rake any lock open. Lockpicking is much more of a skill than people online give credit. People on the Internet always acting like lockpicking is just as easy as using the key for any old novice.
- tjpnz 11mo ago
  Massive problem in Japan where the issue of sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. I suspect it's one of the reasons why Japan isn't on the list of supported countries for the Meta glasses. I hope it stays that way.
  - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
    > sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. These are also issues where we live, they just don't get the same media attention.
    - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
      Do companies sell phones/cameras that take photos without making a sound? Cause they all make sounds in Japan because of how bad the sex pest problem is.
      - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
        The suggestion seems to be that lax governmental attitudes towards the voyeurism risk indicates that the risk itself is lower but I don't believe that's necessarily true or that it would contradict my statement above even if it were.
aqme28 11mo ago
I could see these being worn by walking-around security in a place where filming by the audience isn’t allowed. Super cool.
october8140 11mo ago
It's me. I want to be protected from hidden cameras from other peoples glasses.
- vigilanti 11mo ago
  Project Codename: Allen Funt Project Description: Glasses that have a speaker and appropriately say “You’re on Candid Camera!” when it detects others being recorded.
- shmel 11mo ago
  ... by using your own glasses with a hidden camera? Sounds like a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
  - skripp 11mo ago
    ”I would feel pretty silly if my solution uses its own camera. So I'll be avoiding that.” From the GitHub link.
    - paul7986 11mo ago
      The solution to this (smart glass privacy debate) is Apple releasing smart glasses that automatically anonymize anyone in your photos/videos who isn’t a friend or family member with you at the time (it could be done automatically as Apple knows your friends/family members' faces already). All else appear as random faces, completely removed, a blurred out crowd to whatever privacy config options they offer and you choose. Not a creep here and use my Meta glasses to record my normal non-creepy life and life experiences. They are really convenient and useful (just suck cause they break easily either from software updates to water splashes)!
      - Lucasoato 11mo ago
        This isn't a solution, they would still have the data. Companies can't be trusted, they'll do what is more convenient for them, we need to remove the problem at the root by not allowing people to take pictures/videos if not permitted.
kakacik 11mo ago
[flagged]
- daveoc64 11mo ago
  Switzerland is quite unusual in that regard. I would imagine most Hacker News users live in places where recording or photography in a public place is not illegal. Your suggestion of violence certainly isn't legal in most places!
  - ghaff 11mo ago
    And even in those few places where publishing identifiable photos of people is theoretically illegal, I'm sure it happens thousands or even millions of times a day. I don't shove a camera in people's faces but you'll find plenty of pics in my public feeds that have identifiable people in them, including from many countries in Europe.
- lan321 11mo ago
  Relax Rambo

_ache_ 11mo ago

I agree, I laugh out loud at that pun.

anilakar 11mo ago

> most things which would need to be protected from hidden cameras would be stationary Counter-sniper systems that scan for reflections from optics have existed for twenty years already. These are indeed meant for static operation in military bases and other fixed installations.

arionmiles 11mo ago

Isn't the biggest mobile use case where you don't want to be secretly recorded in public? This was a big concern with the original Google Glass.

littlestymaar 11mo ago
The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed. But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own.
- lukan 11mo ago
  "But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own." It will need both. Secretly recording in the public is already prohibited in many if not most jurisdictions, but ad far as I know, not really prosecuted.
- hackingonempty 11mo ago
  In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.
  - ajsnigrutin 11mo ago
    In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".
    - circuit10 11mo ago
      You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 11mo ago
        Short answer is its complicated and will vary from member state to member state. My parental unit had a dispute with neighbor over where his camera is pointed and filed some motion to see what he does with it ( 'not making a database' part ), but the law was mostly toothless as the enforcement of it lacked. On the other hand, the dispute part of the real estate was handed real toot sweet, because everyone and their mother cares about outcomes in those. tldr: I wish I could tell you there is a simple tldr
        jorvi 11mo ago
        > toot sweet Not sure if intentional but just in case: the usual term is "tout de suite"
        tomalpha 11mo ago
        It might be in the original French, but it’s been anglicised and adopted as an English language term: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/toot-sweet_adv?tl=true https://www.oed.com/dictionary/toot-sweet_adv?tl=true
- brador 11mo ago
  The kinetic solution starts at misdemeanour.
- throwaway808081 11mo ago
  Do not expect this from the UK. That fight despite millions of signatures was batted down: The UK is introducing passed legislation that citizens' digital IDs are owned by a Google or Apple smartphone. The UK already have such laws active and in force that company directors must submit their information through an app available only from Google or Apple. It is clear 'digital IDs' will go the same way. It's not about age or attribute verification. It's about tracking. Which Google excel at, the only alternative Apple and their opt-in. Governments are quite happy making citizens have megacorps track their lives.
  - graemep 11mo ago
    Digital ID legislation has not been introduced. Company directors do not have to use the app. The app is one of three ways of doing it.
- alexfoo 11mo ago
  > The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed. That's very similar to the basis of _The Circle_ by Dave Eggers.
  - dotancohen 11mo ago
    It's not only personal advertisements for consumerism. It's also personalized political messages. That is dangerous to the nations and states and their citizens.
- jeroenhd 11mo ago
  So Ring doorbells and networked CCTV? We're there already. Billboards alongside roads containing targeted advertising already exist, too. I'm not too fussed about the advertisers in this aspect. The people these companies sell data too not meant for advertising are much more dangerous. That includes the government.
- merely-unlikely 11mo ago
  Corporations don't need cameras to track people, they have had the ability to track bluetooth emissions for well over a decade. Unless you turn off a lot of connectivity settings, smartphones are pretty much open tracking devices. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluetooth-wireless-tracking-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...
fennecfoxy 11mo ago
If I want to record you, you'd never know. https://www.dpreview.com/news/4272574802/omnivision-has-created-the-world-s-smallest-commercially-available-image-sensor https://www.dpreview.com/news/4272574802/omnivision-has-crea... So all the people blathering about camera in public have a moot point. All the whining does is prevent the fairly obvious camera being put into devices. But if someone wants to record you in public otherwise, they will and there's nothing you or any of us can do about it.
- probably_wrong 11mo ago
  The thing is, every beginner lockpicker makes a similar point when they realize how easy most locks are: "what's the point of locking my door if anyone can easily get in anyway?". I think the same answers apply here: because making it harder to be casually recorded sends a clear signal that you don't want it, and now the act of recording goes from being an oversight to a deliberate, sometimes punishable act.
  - somethingsome 11mo ago
    It becomes an oversight to a deliberate act only if the recording person knows that he was detected. So that means that your anti recording glasses should signal 'no recording' in some way. Otherwise it's not really useful.. But at that point.. You can just stick a qrcode on you with the message 'no recording please look away from me'.
    - arionmiles 11mo ago
      I think people are getting lost in the weeds here. The idea with detection is not to prevent public recording, it's to _know_ you're being recorded so you can act accordingly.
  - astura 11mo ago
    >The thing is, every beginner lockpicker makes a similar point when they realize how easy most locks are: "what's the point of locking my door if anyone can easily get in anyway?". No they don't. I'm a beginner lockpicker and so far I've only been able pick a 2 pin lock once. Have not been able to repeat it. Have not been able to rake any lock open. Lockpicking is much more of a skill than people online give credit. People on the Internet always acting like lockpicking is just as easy as using the key for any old novice.
tjpnz 11mo ago
Massive problem in Japan where the issue of sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. I suspect it's one of the reasons why Japan isn't on the list of supported countries for the Meta glasses. I hope it stays that way.
- AlecSchueler 11mo ago
  > sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. These are also issues where we live, they just don't get the same media attention.
  - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
    Do companies sell phones/cameras that take photos without making a sound? Cause they all make sounds in Japan because of how bad the sex pest problem is.
    - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
      The suggestion seems to be that lax governmental attitudes towards the voyeurism risk indicates that the risk itself is lower but I don't believe that's necessarily true or that it would contradict my statement above even if it were.

aqme28 11mo ago

I could see these being worn by walking-around security in a place where filming by the audience isn’t allowed. Super cool.

october8140 11mo ago

It's me. I want to be protected from hidden cameras from other peoples glasses.

vigilanti 11mo ago
Project Codename: Allen Funt Project Description: Glasses that have a speaker and appropriately say “You’re on Candid Camera!” when it detects others being recorded.
shmel 11mo ago
... by using your own glasses with a hidden camera? Sounds like a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
- skripp 11mo ago
  ”I would feel pretty silly if my solution uses its own camera. So I'll be avoiding that.” From the GitHub link.
  - paul7986 11mo ago
    The solution to this (smart glass privacy debate) is Apple releasing smart glasses that automatically anonymize anyone in your photos/videos who isn’t a friend or family member with you at the time (it could be done automatically as Apple knows your friends/family members' faces already). All else appear as random faces, completely removed, a blurred out crowd to whatever privacy config options they offer and you choose. Not a creep here and use my Meta glasses to record my normal non-creepy life and life experiences. They are really convenient and useful (just suck cause they break easily either from software updates to water splashes)!
    - Lucasoato 11mo ago
      This isn't a solution, they would still have the data. Companies can't be trusted, they'll do what is more convenient for them, we need to remove the problem at the root by not allowing people to take pictures/videos if not permitted.

kakacik 11mo ago

[flagged]

daveoc64 11mo ago
Switzerland is quite unusual in that regard. I would imagine most Hacker News users live in places where recording or photography in a public place is not illegal. Your suggestion of violence certainly isn't legal in most places!
- ghaff 11mo ago
  And even in those few places where publishing identifiable photos of people is theoretically illegal, I'm sure it happens thousands or even millions of times a day. I don't shove a camera in people's faces but you'll find plenty of pics in my public feeds that have identifiable people in them, including from many countries in Europe.
lan321 11mo ago
Relax Rambo