5 ms·

The annoying thing is that even if you yourself don't use these glasses, as long as people around you do, you are still affected by it. We really need laws to l

The annoying thing is that even if you yourself don't use these glasses, as long as people around you do, you are still affected by it. We really need laws to limit always-on recording devices in places where we have an expectation of privacy.

hollow-moe 8mo ago
"But it's the public space you can't expect any kind of privacy there, if you don't want private companies to do biometrics on your face from a rando glasses just don't go out :)" The open air panopticon, where every inmate is also the warden, gov salivates at the idea. (yes, yes, you're very smart, you, the reader: smartphones are already tracking and recording us everywhere. One more device, one more case isn't an issue anymore. So let's just keep adding them instead of trying to address them.)
xmx98 8mo ago
I heard that in Japan phones have an audible shutter sound. Not mandated by law. Though I think that having this in the law is very reasonable. Maybe EU can step up. Taking photos is more fun with the sound too.
- dangus 8mo ago
  It’s not one law but it’s essentially a collaborative result of ordinances, manufacturers, and telecom carriers. https://japandaily.jp/why-you-cant-turn-off-the-camera-shutter-sound-in-japan/ https://japandaily.jp/why-you-cant-turn-off-the-camera-shutt...
lnrd 8mo ago
We need laws and social norms where filming a stranger and uploading it online is considered a serious unacceptable offense regardless of the device. I find it absurd that today is completely acceptable to just film an unaware stranger and put the video online, especially since that the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them.
- leptons 8mo ago
  >the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them That's just nonsense. Your feeds seem to be polluted by what you are seeking out, as I've never seen a video on any service that shows humiliation of anyone. I watch a lot of 1st ammendment audit videos, and that is never about humiliation, though many people end up looking very ignorant of the laws concerning recording in public which is in the 1st ammendment.
- observationist 8mo ago
  You shouldn't expect privacy in public spaces. That's the nature of public spaces. In the US, freedom of press means anywhere public means you have no expectation of privacy, and should comport yourself as such; don't do anything or wear anything in public you wouldn't want to be recorded. This is why paparazzi exist and how they operate. It's the dirty, dingy cost of having a free press, freedom of travel, freedom to hold public officials accountable, subject to the same laws you are; you can't waffle or restrict or grant exceptions, because those inevitably, invariably get abused by those in power.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lnrd 7mo ago
    It's amusing to always have this US-centric view touted as some ultimate truth while lacking any nuance. I live in Germany and here there is absolutely an expectation of privacy in public spaces. The individual rights (privacy) are balanced with the collective rights (freedom of press) and both are allowed to exist, because based on the context of the situation one right can prevail on the other. To give you some simple examples: if I go to a public event, a political manifestation, then no: no expectation of privacy. But if I am walking around with my family in a park, yes there's absolute expectation of privacy even if I'm in a public space. Context matters and it's impossible to have just one broad and vague rule covering anything. Also keep in mind that a public figure automatically has lower expectations of privacy than a private citizen. While I can sue a paper for publishing a picture of me slacking at work, a public figure most likely cannot or would lose in court because the right of the people to get informed of his behavior is higher than his right for privacy. Who gets to decide? A healthy judiciary system, not "those in power". Another interesting nuance of the law in Germany is: it's almost always illegal to take pictures or video of people that show their suffering or struggle. You cannot take a video of a man having a mental breakdown for example. Is this universal? No, of course a journalist will take a picture of a suffering man in the cold to send a message about inequality. If he ever will be sued it will be the judge to decide if in this specific instance the right of the individual or the right of the collective right should prevail.
observationist 8mo ago
Actually useful AR needs cameras, of course, so the technology has legitimate use cases, but you'd have to be a real asshole to wear them to a bar, or a restaurant, etc. Maybe we mandate that the glasses have to have a base station dongle, and if they're more than 10 feet from the dongle, recording doesn't work without incredibly obvious annoying lights indicating that recording is on? A cultural convention that lets people make honest mistakes, but turn it off when someone says "hey, you're recording" seems like a good solution. Just need to make it easily visible and obvious to others - you can run around in public with a big news camera on your shoulder or a tripod and you usually won't get hassled. It's just the idea of being covertly recorded, even while in public, that gets creepy.
- alkonaut 8mo ago
  Maybe if we weigh legitimate use cases against privacy and end up deciding that the privacy is more important, then we just don't accept those use cases? That is: we invent new awesome life-changing technology and we just... don't use it? Like we could have navigational AR-glasses. The wearer sees arrows on the floor where to walk. And we could choose to not let anyone wear them in public even though what they do is useful, and there aren't any real privacy issues. But people around the wearer don't know that. That's the privacy concern.
  - observationist 8mo ago
    Part of it is civics. You have the right to record in public. Being in a public space means you are consenting to being recorded; it's in public. It's not always moral, classy, correct, or good, but the alternative is the erosion of the principles of free press, freedom of expression, etc. The form factor of the camera doesn't matter. We do have different constraints, but those are pretty solidly filled out in case law. I don't believe making recording glasses illegal to wear in public would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Mandating a visible notification with a conventional color, signaling things like "on" "passive" and "recording" would be constitutional and wouldn't infringe. That said, surreptitious use would likely be legal, e.g. aftermarket modification to allow recording with no lights; first amendment issues have a high bar and all sorts of secret camera precedents being legal. This is how corrupt politicians and cops and officials get caught, all the time, and it's highly unlikely to be smart glasses that gets the people and courts to flip on 1A.
leptons 8mo ago
There are very few places you can expect privacy in public. Restrooms, changing rooms, etc. But in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US). In private settings, as with public, you are typically free to leave a setting where people are recording. The law has no specifications for what type of device can do the recording, pr for how long a recording can be.
- greentea23 8mo ago
  What you expect does not have to be what you strive for.
  - leptons 8mo ago
    The same laws that let us record in public, also let us record law enforcement, which does give us a way to document abuse of power - something that happens all too often. If we start restricting recording in public, then we lose that right, and then law enforcement will become far more abusive with their power.
- alkonaut 8mo ago
  > in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US) Shouldn't there be a discussion about what that means? What _is_ privacy? Is it completely black or white, all or nothing? Are some kinds of privacy breaches more acceptable than others? I feel that the "you can have no expectation of privacy in public" discussion is some times used as if it's some sort of fundamental truth that must not be challenged. If people _want_ to have more privacy in public, whatever that means, then let's make it happen.
  - leptons 8mo ago
    Wear a burqa if you want total privacy while in public. Or prosthetics, I guess. I've seen people wearing full-face reflective shields in public - but that was mostly as a sun-shield to protect their ever-shriveling faces. The only thing stopping you from having real privacy while in public is social norms. Other than that I don't see a way to remain "private" while in "public" with the current laws that we have, and I kind of like the laws that we have. These are the same laws that let us record law enforcement, which is especially useful when they abuse their power - something that happens far to often. If the laws around recording in public were altered, then we likely also lose that right, and then law enforcement becomes even more dangerous to the citizens.
alkonaut 8mo ago
And I think we need to redefine privacy as something that isn't black or white. In a bathroom or in my home I expect complete privacy. In the street I expect _less privacy_ but it doesn't mean I have "no expectation of privacy". If my biometrics or a recording of my voice is sent to a different continent and then used to change which ad shows on the phone of the person next to me on the subway, then that's less privacy than I expected and wanted.

hollow-moe 8mo ago

"But it's the public space you can't expect any kind of privacy there, if you don't want private companies to do biometrics on your face from a rando glasses just don't go out :)" The open air panopticon, where every inmate is also the warden, gov salivates at the idea. (yes, yes, you're very smart, you, the reader: smartphones are already tracking and recording us everywhere. One more device, one more case isn't an issue anymore. So let's just keep adding them instead of trying to address them.)

xmx98 8mo ago

I heard that in Japan phones have an audible shutter sound. Not mandated by law. Though I think that having this in the law is very reasonable. Maybe EU can step up. Taking photos is more fun with the sound too.

dangus 8mo ago
It’s not one law but it’s essentially a collaborative result of ordinances, manufacturers, and telecom carriers. https://japandaily.jp/why-you-cant-turn-off-the-camera-shutter-sound-in-japan/ https://japandaily.jp/why-you-cant-turn-off-the-camera-shutt...

lnrd 8mo ago

We need laws and social norms where filming a stranger and uploading it online is considered a serious unacceptable offense regardless of the device. I find it absurd that today is completely acceptable to just film an unaware stranger and put the video online, especially since that the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them.

leptons 8mo ago
>the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them That's just nonsense. Your feeds seem to be polluted by what you are seeking out, as I've never seen a video on any service that shows humiliation of anyone. I watch a lot of 1st ammendment audit videos, and that is never about humiliation, though many people end up looking very ignorant of the laws concerning recording in public which is in the 1st ammendment.
observationist 8mo ago
You shouldn't expect privacy in public spaces. That's the nature of public spaces. In the US, freedom of press means anywhere public means you have no expectation of privacy, and should comport yourself as such; don't do anything or wear anything in public you wouldn't want to be recorded. This is why paparazzi exist and how they operate. It's the dirty, dingy cost of having a free press, freedom of travel, freedom to hold public officials accountable, subject to the same laws you are; you can't waffle or restrict or grant exceptions, because those inevitably, invariably get abused by those in power.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- lnrd 7mo ago
  It's amusing to always have this US-centric view touted as some ultimate truth while lacking any nuance. I live in Germany and here there is absolutely an expectation of privacy in public spaces. The individual rights (privacy) are balanced with the collective rights (freedom of press) and both are allowed to exist, because based on the context of the situation one right can prevail on the other. To give you some simple examples: if I go to a public event, a political manifestation, then no: no expectation of privacy. But if I am walking around with my family in a park, yes there's absolute expectation of privacy even if I'm in a public space. Context matters and it's impossible to have just one broad and vague rule covering anything. Also keep in mind that a public figure automatically has lower expectations of privacy than a private citizen. While I can sue a paper for publishing a picture of me slacking at work, a public figure most likely cannot or would lose in court because the right of the people to get informed of his behavior is higher than his right for privacy. Who gets to decide? A healthy judiciary system, not "those in power". Another interesting nuance of the law in Germany is: it's almost always illegal to take pictures or video of people that show their suffering or struggle. You cannot take a video of a man having a mental breakdown for example. Is this universal? No, of course a journalist will take a picture of a suffering man in the cold to send a message about inequality. If he ever will be sued it will be the judge to decide if in this specific instance the right of the individual or the right of the collective right should prevail.

observationist 8mo ago

Actually useful AR needs cameras, of course, so the technology has legitimate use cases, but you'd have to be a real asshole to wear them to a bar, or a restaurant, etc. Maybe we mandate that the glasses have to have a base station dongle, and if they're more than 10 feet from the dongle, recording doesn't work without incredibly obvious annoying lights indicating that recording is on? A cultural convention that lets people make honest mistakes, but turn it off when someone says "hey, you're recording" seems like a good solution. Just need to make it easily visible and obvious to others - you can run around in public with a big news camera on your shoulder or a tripod and you usually won't get hassled. It's just the idea of being covertly recorded, even while in public, that gets creepy.

alkonaut 8mo ago
Maybe if we weigh legitimate use cases against privacy and end up deciding that the privacy is more important, then we just don't accept those use cases? That is: we invent new awesome life-changing technology and we just... don't use it? Like we could have navigational AR-glasses. The wearer sees arrows on the floor where to walk. And we could choose to not let anyone wear them in public even though what they do is useful, and there aren't any real privacy issues. But people around the wearer don't know that. That's the privacy concern.
- observationist 8mo ago
  Part of it is civics. You have the right to record in public. Being in a public space means you are consenting to being recorded; it's in public. It's not always moral, classy, correct, or good, but the alternative is the erosion of the principles of free press, freedom of expression, etc. The form factor of the camera doesn't matter. We do have different constraints, but those are pretty solidly filled out in case law. I don't believe making recording glasses illegal to wear in public would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Mandating a visible notification with a conventional color, signaling things like "on" "passive" and "recording" would be constitutional and wouldn't infringe. That said, surreptitious use would likely be legal, e.g. aftermarket modification to allow recording with no lights; first amendment issues have a high bar and all sorts of secret camera precedents being legal. This is how corrupt politicians and cops and officials get caught, all the time, and it's highly unlikely to be smart glasses that gets the people and courts to flip on 1A.

leptons 8mo ago

There are very few places you can expect privacy in public. Restrooms, changing rooms, etc. But in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US). In private settings, as with public, you are typically free to leave a setting where people are recording. The law has no specifications for what type of device can do the recording, pr for how long a recording can be.

greentea23 8mo ago
What you expect does not have to be what you strive for.
- leptons 8mo ago
  The same laws that let us record in public, also let us record law enforcement, which does give us a way to document abuse of power - something that happens all too often. If we start restricting recording in public, then we lose that right, and then law enforcement will become far more abusive with their power.
alkonaut 8mo ago
> in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US) Shouldn't there be a discussion about what that means? What _is_ privacy? Is it completely black or white, all or nothing? Are some kinds of privacy breaches more acceptable than others? I feel that the "you can have no expectation of privacy in public" discussion is some times used as if it's some sort of fundamental truth that must not be challenged. If people _want_ to have more privacy in public, whatever that means, then let's make it happen.
- leptons 8mo ago
  Wear a burqa if you want total privacy while in public. Or prosthetics, I guess. I've seen people wearing full-face reflective shields in public - but that was mostly as a sun-shield to protect their ever-shriveling faces. The only thing stopping you from having real privacy while in public is social norms. Other than that I don't see a way to remain "private" while in "public" with the current laws that we have, and I kind of like the laws that we have. These are the same laws that let us record law enforcement, which is especially useful when they abuse their power - something that happens far to often. If the laws around recording in public were altered, then we likely also lose that right, and then law enforcement becomes even more dangerous to the citizens.

alkonaut 8mo ago

And I think we need to redefine privacy as something that isn't black or white. In a bathroom or in my home I expect complete privacy. In the street I expect _less privacy_ but it doesn't mean I have "no expectation of privacy". If my biometrics or a recording of my voice is sent to a different continent and then used to change which ad shows on the phone of the person next to me on the subway, then that's less privacy than I expected and wanted.