4 ms·

German advocacy group lodges criminal complaint over Meta AI glasses

119 points by tartoran 2mo ago

dgellow 2mo ago
Ah, I was waiting for this to happen! That will be interesting to follow. From my non-lawyer read of German laws that should be a n easy win for the advocacy group, but I’m interested to see Meta’s arguments
- elias_t 2mo ago
  I think they will argue that the led gives an indication that it's recording and therefore not "hidden in everyday object". The issue is more about people removing the LED, I guess they will toughen the law about this in the future.
mschild 2mo ago
The main complaint and law that HateAid, the organization that lodged the complaint, is using, is that recording devices have to be visible as such. Glasses are not a known and widely accepted video/photo device and therefore affected by that law. Effectively, their complaint is that a specific model looks too much like normal sunglasses that other people are unable to distinguish them as such. Article with a bit more detail: https://www.heise.de/en/news/AI-glasses-Criminal-charges-against-Meta-Ray-Ban-and-opticians-11411022.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/AI-glasses-Criminal-charges-aga...
- barbazoo 2mo ago
  I imagine Meta and folks wearing these glasses would object to webcam like behavior where it tells you with a LED that it's consuming the video feed. Could be same for taking a picture. But then probably fewer people would buy them.
  - eqvinox 2mo ago
    These glasses have a LED. I haven't seen it for real, but I've heard it's not discernible at daylight. Even so, it might still run afoul of German law. The German radio directive specifically forbids recording devices made to blend in and be surreptitious. The LED would have to be extremely obvious and hard to tamper with. (It's not even a privacy directive; you're just not allowed to sell devices like that. Baby monitors have run afoul it.) [German] https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Datenportal/Verbraucherschutz/TK_Verbraucherschutz/Spionagegeraete/Spionagegeraete.html https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Datenportal/V... Blue is "online offers actioned/removed", orange is "legal proceedings initiated against vendors & sellers". That's more than 7 legal actions per day in 2024.
    - waltbosz 2mo ago
      The LEDs can be disabled with a hardware mod. https://thenewthings.com/p/i-paid-someone-to-hack-my-meta-glasses https://thenewthings.com/p/i-paid-someone-to-hack-my-meta-gl...
      - eqvinox 2mo ago
        That's not an argument in this (legal) case since the regulation applies at the time the device is sold. (It just means the applicable law is another one, i.e. the one against recording in secret, which applies regardless of what the recording device looks like.) [Ed.: it could still be considered a design/manufacturing defect, I guess. It certainly would fail if it were intentionally made such that the LED is trivially disabled. The courts may have to decide if this is in the grey zone.]
    - dgellow 2mo ago
      You’re also not allowed to record anyone without their explicit consent if there is an expectation of privacy, even in public spaces. That makes the device use very likely to be illegal (assuming you use it to record videos in public spaces and it’s sensitive enough to record your surroundings)
- squidsoup 2mo ago
  Heads should be rolling at Ray-Ban, they've permanently tarnished an iconic American brand by aligning themselves with big tech.
  - bathtub365 2mo ago
    Ray Ban has been an Italian brand for decades. They got bought by Luxottica in 1999.
    - squidsoup 2mo ago
      That doesn't change the fact that its an iconic American brand, directly associated with American culture and design.
peter_stokes 2mo ago
"HateAid said its complaint was based on a federal digital data protection law that prohibits the sale of communication devices designed to film people without them noticing." I think the light makes it pretty clear it's recording? There will always be devices made to suppress this... I'm not sure I want to go down the path of mandating an audible camera click sound like they have for smartphones in Japan
- nemomarx 2mo ago
  What would be best for a video equivalent of that? I can imagine an old school "film rolling" sound playing for as long as it's recording, or some tape hiss or something.
  - soco 2mo ago
    When you film with a camera you are holding a camera and you're pointing it at people. When you film with your glasses, nothing of such happens. And the ridiculous defense "it has a light" is just that, ridiculous: you can't see a light if you're not looking directly at it and have convenient surrounding lighting.
    - garbawarb 2mo ago
      I'd say it's easier to covertly film someone with a smartphone than with glasses that have a lightup LED. With the smartphone you can just angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
      - nemomarx 2mo ago
        Pretty easy to block the led too, though.
      - soco 2mo ago
        Are we arguing about what the creepiest way is to film people on the streets? Who would want that in the first place?? I don't need encouraging creeps... I didn't hear yet "filming the ICE" as a argument - probably the only one I could understand, but there the problem is not the glasses anyway (nor the solution).
023847292847 2mo ago
[flagged]
- nemomarx 2mo ago
  I don't see how that's related to the meta glasses case here? Are people going to dissent by wearing them...? Can you expand on what you mean?
rbehrends 2mo ago
The relevant legal provision is from §8 TDDDG [1]: "(1) It is prohibited to possess, manufacture, make available on the market, import, or otherwise bring within the territory to which this Act applies, telecommunications equipment that, by its appearance, purports to be another object or is disguised as an object of everyday use and that, because of these circumstances or because of the way it functions, is particularly suited and intended to intercept, without that person’s knowledge, the non-publicly spoken words of another person or to record images of another person without that person’s knowledge." IANAL, but this sounds like it's directly applicable. Violations can be punished with up to two years in prison or a fine. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__8.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__8.html
- closetohome 2mo ago
  Glasses that record video have been around for decades, they just weren't as pervasive. It sounds like this is a general law against disguised surveillance cameras, which I'm sure has historically included camera glasses, so it seems like kind of a slam dunk unless Meta can somehow argue that smart glasses have become common enough to be readily recognized as a recording device.
gyanchawdhary 2mo ago
They lost badly to X a few years back, only to show incredible maturity and grace by quitting the platform afterward .. would love to see how they do against Meta
Bleaphar 2mo ago
Wonder how long until something like this comes to the United States? Doubt it'll happen federally but could see some states like California setting up similar cases
- Manfrednotfunny 2mo ago
  Zuckerburg suckt Trumps dick. Trump doesn't care. I don't think this will be banned in the USA
penguin_booze 2mo ago
I suppose these devices might be a helping hand to folks who are visually impaired. As if it's not enough to run a global surveillance platform, they now have released the world a army of live, lobotomised surveillance drones. My take is that the only legislation we need is this: give legal immunity to the people who want to grab the glasses off the smug faces of the said drones, and smash it into pieces.

119 points by tartoran 2mo ago

Ah, I was waiting for this to happen! That will be interesting to follow. From my non-lawyer read of German laws that should be a n easy win for the advocacy group, but I’m interested to see Meta’s arguments

elias_t 2mo ago
I think they will argue that the led gives an indication that it's recording and therefore not "hidden in everyday object". The issue is more about people removing the LED, I guess they will toughen the law about this in the future.

mschild 2mo ago

The main complaint and law that HateAid, the organization that lodged the complaint, is using, is that recording devices have to be visible as such. Glasses are not a known and widely accepted video/photo device and therefore affected by that law. Effectively, their complaint is that a specific model looks too much like normal sunglasses that other people are unable to distinguish them as such. Article with a bit more detail: https://www.heise.de/en/news/AI-glasses-Criminal-charges-against-Meta-Ray-Ban-and-opticians-11411022.html https://www.heise.de/en/news/AI-glasses-Criminal-charges-aga...

barbazoo 2mo ago
I imagine Meta and folks wearing these glasses would object to webcam like behavior where it tells you with a LED that it's consuming the video feed. Could be same for taking a picture. But then probably fewer people would buy them.
- eqvinox 2mo ago
  These glasses have a LED. I haven't seen it for real, but I've heard it's not discernible at daylight. Even so, it might still run afoul of German law. The German radio directive specifically forbids recording devices made to blend in and be surreptitious. The LED would have to be extremely obvious and hard to tamper with. (It's not even a privacy directive; you're just not allowed to sell devices like that. Baby monitors have run afoul it.) [German] https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Datenportal/Verbraucherschutz/TK_Verbraucherschutz/Spionagegeraete/Spionagegeraete.html https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Datenportal/V... Blue is "online offers actioned/removed", orange is "legal proceedings initiated against vendors & sellers". That's more than 7 legal actions per day in 2024.
  - waltbosz 2mo ago
    The LEDs can be disabled with a hardware mod. https://thenewthings.com/p/i-paid-someone-to-hack-my-meta-glasses https://thenewthings.com/p/i-paid-someone-to-hack-my-meta-gl...
    - eqvinox 2mo ago
      That's not an argument in this (legal) case since the regulation applies at the time the device is sold. (It just means the applicable law is another one, i.e. the one against recording in secret, which applies regardless of what the recording device looks like.) [Ed.: it could still be considered a design/manufacturing defect, I guess. It certainly would fail if it were intentionally made such that the LED is trivially disabled. The courts may have to decide if this is in the grey zone.]
  - dgellow 2mo ago
    You’re also not allowed to record anyone without their explicit consent if there is an expectation of privacy, even in public spaces. That makes the device use very likely to be illegal (assuming you use it to record videos in public spaces and it’s sensitive enough to record your surroundings)
squidsoup 2mo ago
Heads should be rolling at Ray-Ban, they've permanently tarnished an iconic American brand by aligning themselves with big tech.
- bathtub365 2mo ago
  Ray Ban has been an Italian brand for decades. They got bought by Luxottica in 1999.
  - squidsoup 2mo ago
    That doesn't change the fact that its an iconic American brand, directly associated with American culture and design.

peter_stokes 2mo ago

"HateAid said its complaint was based on a federal digital data protection law that prohibits the sale of communication devices designed to film people without them noticing." I think the light makes it pretty clear it's recording? There will always be devices made to suppress this... I'm not sure I want to go down the path of mandating an audible camera click sound like they have for smartphones in Japan

nemomarx 2mo ago
What would be best for a video equivalent of that? I can imagine an old school "film rolling" sound playing for as long as it's recording, or some tape hiss or something.
- soco 2mo ago
  When you film with a camera you are holding a camera and you're pointing it at people. When you film with your glasses, nothing of such happens. And the ridiculous defense "it has a light" is just that, ridiculous: you can't see a light if you're not looking directly at it and have convenient surrounding lighting.
  - garbawarb 2mo ago
    I'd say it's easier to covertly film someone with a smartphone than with glasses that have a lightup LED. With the smartphone you can just angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
    - nemomarx 2mo ago
      Pretty easy to block the led too, though.
    - soco 2mo ago
      Are we arguing about what the creepiest way is to film people on the streets? Who would want that in the first place?? I don't need encouraging creeps... I didn't hear yet "filming the ICE" as a argument - probably the only one I could understand, but there the problem is not the glasses anyway (nor the solution).

023847292847 2mo ago

[flagged]

nemomarx 2mo ago
I don't see how that's related to the meta glasses case here? Are people going to dissent by wearing them...? Can you expand on what you mean?

rbehrends 2mo ago

The relevant legal provision is from §8 TDDDG [1]: "(1) It is prohibited to possess, manufacture, make available on the market, import, or otherwise bring within the territory to which this Act applies, telecommunications equipment that, by its appearance, purports to be another object or is disguised as an object of everyday use and that, because of these circumstances or because of the way it functions, is particularly suited and intended to intercept, without that person’s knowledge, the non-publicly spoken words of another person or to record images of another person without that person’s knowledge." IANAL, but this sounds like it's directly applicable. Violations can be punished with up to two years in prison or a fine. [1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__8.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__8.html

closetohome 2mo ago
Glasses that record video have been around for decades, they just weren't as pervasive. It sounds like this is a general law against disguised surveillance cameras, which I'm sure has historically included camera glasses, so it seems like kind of a slam dunk unless Meta can somehow argue that smart glasses have become common enough to be readily recognized as a recording device.

gyanchawdhary 2mo ago

They lost badly to X a few years back, only to show incredible maturity and grace by quitting the platform afterward .. would love to see how they do against Meta

Bleaphar 2mo ago

Wonder how long until something like this comes to the United States? Doubt it'll happen federally but could see some states like California setting up similar cases

Manfrednotfunny 2mo ago
Zuckerburg suckt Trumps dick. Trump doesn't care. I don't think this will be banned in the USA

penguin_booze 2mo ago

I suppose these devices might be a helping hand to folks who are visually impaired. As if it's not enough to run a global surveillance platform, they now have released the world a army of live, lobotomised surveillance drones. My take is that the only legislation we need is this: give legal immunity to the people who want to grab the glasses off the smug faces of the said drones, and smash it into pieces.