4 ms·

>"Some people are using the glasses — which look like a pair of regular spectacles — to record people without their knowledge and publish the videos on social m

>"Some people are using the glasses — which look like a pair of regular spectacles — to record people without their knowledge and publish the videos on social media. The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could be covertly recorded at the gym..." Observation: The same technology could be used to record business deals, job interviews and other negotiations with consent of the counterparty... In fact, both parties in such transactions could record this way (legally and ethically!) if each has consent of the other...

daheza 2mo ago
I wonder if there should be a provision in the ISO 27001 about not allowing these smart glasses into the workplace
- rimbo789 2mo ago
  If there isn't currently there will be very soon.
danparsonson 2mo ago
If you want to do that, there is a wide variety of pre-existing recording devices available already...
- peter_d_sherman 2mo ago
  >"pre-existing recording devices available already..." Exactly! People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses! In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specifically, the lack of consent!) than it does from a specific type of video recording device...
  - Atheros 2mo ago
    The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.
    - peter_d_sherman 2mo ago
      Well, I consider myself fairly stupid then! Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"? In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it? If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant? Because you haven't "caught" them? Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device? Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely? What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not? I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses... If I may suggest... If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording... If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?) So, to recap, I don't understand. You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses? Or is there some other issue or issues? I don't get it; help me out!

daheza 2mo ago

I wonder if there should be a provision in the ISO 27001 about not allowing these smart glasses into the workplace

rimbo789 2mo ago
If there isn't currently there will be very soon.

danparsonson 2mo ago

If you want to do that, there is a wide variety of pre-existing recording devices available already...

peter_d_sherman 2mo ago
>"pre-existing recording devices available already..." Exactly! People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses! In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specifically, the lack of consent!) than it does from a specific type of video recording device...
- Atheros 2mo ago
  The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.
  - peter_d_sherman 2mo ago
    Well, I consider myself fairly stupid then! Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"? In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it? If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant? Because you haven't "caught" them? Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device? Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely? What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not? I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses... If I may suggest... If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording... If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?) So, to recap, I don't understand. You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses? Or is there some other issue or issues? I don't get it; help me out!