3 ms·

People commonly continue to wear their AirPods in the changing rooms, because why not? Keep the tunes/podcast/etc going while you get ready/even shower. If the

People commonly continue to wear their AirPods in the changing rooms, because why not? Keep the tunes/podcast/etc going while you get ready/even shower. If they add cameras to them, regardless of the implementation, I'm pretty sure that not only is against every gym-policy, but may be an actual criminal offense in certain states. So I guess what I am saying is: This could be an anti-feature for certain people, or get people into trouble who continue to do a preexisting habit.

Timpanzee 8mo ago
IR cameras, not visible light cameras, so this should be a non-issue.
- Someone1234 8mo ago
  Have you never used an IR camera? IR can see more than visible light cameras, including through layers of people's clothing and can certainly see a detailed image of a naked human. So more of an issue in that case; and the laws I am talking about don't have a "IR Camera" exception.
gruez 8mo ago
>If they add cameras to them, regardless of the implementation, I'm pretty sure that not only is against every gym-policy, but may be an actual criminal offense in certain states. Is having the camera on illegal in and of itself, or only when you're actively recording?
- Someone1234 8mo ago
  If the purpose of these is gestures, won't they always be "actively recording?"
  - gruez 8mo ago
    If you open the camera app but don't hit record, it's still "recording" in the sense that the image sensor is receiving light and sending over data, but it's not "recording" in what most people interpret the word to mean.
    - Someone1234 8mo ago
      I think if people take out their phone and start pointing the camera at others in the changing room, most people would interpret that to not be ok and that's what we're discussing here. You're essentially setting the scene to where people cannot know if they're being recorded or not while a camera is always pointed at them. That's a problem. Least of all because law enforcement will need to investigate to determine if the law was broken on each complaint. "But internal processing!" isn't quite the slam dunk defense you seem to think it is. It won't work like that in the real world, people being recorded while changing won't care about that distinction.
      - gruez 8mo ago
        >I think if people take out their phone and start pointing the camera at others in the changing room, most people would interpret that to not be ok and that's what we're discussing here. Right, because there's very few plausible justifications for why someone would be aiming their phone in a changing room. The same doesn't apply to airpods. >You're essentially setting the scene to where people cannot know if they're being recorded or not while a camera is always pointed at them. That's a problem. Least of all because law enforcement will need to investigate to determine if the law was broken on each complaint. Is there any indication that you'll be able to get a video feed from airpods? If not, and you basically have to jailbreak them to do surreptitious recordings, what makes them more or less notable than all the other spy cameras you can get today and are more or less tolerated by the authorities? >"But internal processing!" isn't quite the slam dunk defense you seem to think it is. It won't work like that in the real world, people being recorded while changing won't care about that distinction. Do you think it's some outrageous breach of privacy that face id (and similar face scanning technologies) are constantly on the lookout for faces, including in bathrooms?

Timpanzee 8mo ago

IR cameras, not visible light cameras, so this should be a non-issue.

Someone1234 8mo ago
Have you never used an IR camera? IR can see more than visible light cameras, including through layers of people's clothing and can certainly see a detailed image of a naked human. So more of an issue in that case; and the laws I am talking about don't have a "IR Camera" exception.

gruez 8mo ago

>If they add cameras to them, regardless of the implementation, I'm pretty sure that not only is against every gym-policy, but may be an actual criminal offense in certain states. Is having the camera on illegal in and of itself, or only when you're actively recording?

Someone1234 8mo ago
If the purpose of these is gestures, won't they always be "actively recording?"
- gruez 8mo ago
  If you open the camera app but don't hit record, it's still "recording" in the sense that the image sensor is receiving light and sending over data, but it's not "recording" in what most people interpret the word to mean.
  - Someone1234 8mo ago
    I think if people take out their phone and start pointing the camera at others in the changing room, most people would interpret that to not be ok and that's what we're discussing here. You're essentially setting the scene to where people cannot know if they're being recorded or not while a camera is always pointed at them. That's a problem. Least of all because law enforcement will need to investigate to determine if the law was broken on each complaint. "But internal processing!" isn't quite the slam dunk defense you seem to think it is. It won't work like that in the real world, people being recorded while changing won't care about that distinction.
    - gruez 8mo ago
      >I think if people take out their phone and start pointing the camera at others in the changing room, most people would interpret that to not be ok and that's what we're discussing here. Right, because there's very few plausible justifications for why someone would be aiming their phone in a changing room. The same doesn't apply to airpods. >You're essentially setting the scene to where people cannot know if they're being recorded or not while a camera is always pointed at them. That's a problem. Least of all because law enforcement will need to investigate to determine if the law was broken on each complaint. Is there any indication that you'll be able to get a video feed from airpods? If not, and you basically have to jailbreak them to do surreptitious recordings, what makes them more or less notable than all the other spy cameras you can get today and are more or less tolerated by the authorities? >"But internal processing!" isn't quite the slam dunk defense you seem to think it is. It won't work like that in the real world, people being recorded while changing won't care about that distinction. Do you think it's some outrageous breach of privacy that face id (and similar face scanning technologies) are constantly on the lookout for faces, including in bathrooms?