4 ms·

You have no expectation of privacy in any public place, period. Photographers have always had the right to take your picture without your permission, as long a

You have no expectation of privacy in any public place, period. Photographers have always had the right to take your picture without your permission, as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. It sounds like your complaint amounts to this: everyone will be a photographer once this becomes popular.

konstruktor 14y ago
Parent was not talking about about legal issues. The fact that what you are saying is the law in your jurisdiction does not make it a moral imperative. Expectations of privacy vary from culture to culture. Nice example how ", period" rarely has a place in a civilzed discussion.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Except that this is about legal issues, since the complaints ignore simple technical solutions like wearing a mask. It is no different than demanding laws to protect the privacy of your email because you are unwilling to use cryptography. As for expectations, nobody in any society where Glass is useful can claim to have an expectation of not being photographed in public. Google Glass relies on the availability of Internet access, which basically means a society where cell phones are common, and by extension cameras. People use cell phone cameras in a casual, carefree manner in public and private; Google Glass is no different.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I would posit that using PGP is less of an inconvenience than going out in public in a burka.
legutierr 14y ago
But doesn't the "no expectation of privacy in public places" dictum mean something fundamentally different in a world where many people wear always-on digital video recording devices vs. a world where some small minority of people carry analog chemical-based cameras--i.e. the world from which the "no expectation of privacy" concept emerged? Might we need a different standard?
- betterunix 14y ago
  Do you want to live in a world where you need permission to take a picture? We do not live in a world where a minority of people carry cameras: almost every cell phone now has an integrated camera, and almost everyone has a cell phone (even in remote African villages, people have cell phones, often shared among the villagers). Tourists have been taking pictures in public places, without regard for the strangers in their camera's field of view, for decades. There are already other classes of always-on video recorders that people generally accept: dashcams, security cameras, etc. There are a few complaints from people who do not think wearing a mask in public is an acceptable countermeasure, but for the most part people do not mind -- as long as the camera is not pointed into their home. Google Glass is hardly different; in fact, it records video less often.
  - legutierr 14y ago
    No I don't want a world where ordinary citizens need permission to take a picture--but neither do I want to live in a world where a google or Facebook employee can find out in seconds where anyone in the world is or has been and what that person is or has been doing. Ubiquitous, always-on video devices that are always talking to a server, combined with facial recognition and other AI would allow this, and there seems to be no legal or cultural prohibition against it.
claudius 14y ago
Actually, no. Here (DE), photographers are allowed to take your picture in public if you are not the main component of that picture (with a few extra exceptions). And that’s just for picture taking. For recording (either video or sound), you need to put up signs on private property and you are not allowed to constantly record public places anyways. So, yes, you can have an expectation of privacy in any public place in the meaning of not being covertly recorded and photographed.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Ah sorry, I was being a bit...American. Here, the only restriction on photography is on commercial use.
  - claudius 14y ago
    (Un)fortunately, Google Glass is not restricted to the states.

konstruktor 14y ago

Parent was not talking about about legal issues. The fact that what you are saying is the law in your jurisdiction does not make it a moral imperative. Expectations of privacy vary from culture to culture. Nice example how ", period" rarely has a place in a civilzed discussion.

betterunix 14y ago
Except that this is about legal issues, since the complaints ignore simple technical solutions like wearing a mask. It is no different than demanding laws to protect the privacy of your email because you are unwilling to use cryptography. As for expectations, nobody in any society where Glass is useful can claim to have an expectation of not being photographed in public. Google Glass relies on the availability of Internet access, which basically means a society where cell phones are common, and by extension cameras. People use cell phone cameras in a casual, carefree manner in public and private; Google Glass is no different.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  I would posit that using PGP is less of an inconvenience than going out in public in a burka.

legutierr 14y ago

But doesn't the "no expectation of privacy in public places" dictum mean something fundamentally different in a world where many people wear always-on digital video recording devices vs. a world where some small minority of people carry analog chemical-based cameras--i.e. the world from which the "no expectation of privacy" concept emerged? Might we need a different standard?

betterunix 14y ago
Do you want to live in a world where you need permission to take a picture? We do not live in a world where a minority of people carry cameras: almost every cell phone now has an integrated camera, and almost everyone has a cell phone (even in remote African villages, people have cell phones, often shared among the villagers). Tourists have been taking pictures in public places, without regard for the strangers in their camera's field of view, for decades. There are already other classes of always-on video recorders that people generally accept: dashcams, security cameras, etc. There are a few complaints from people who do not think wearing a mask in public is an acceptable countermeasure, but for the most part people do not mind -- as long as the camera is not pointed into their home. Google Glass is hardly different; in fact, it records video less often.
- legutierr 14y ago
  No I don't want a world where ordinary citizens need permission to take a picture--but neither do I want to live in a world where a google or Facebook employee can find out in seconds where anyone in the world is or has been and what that person is or has been doing. Ubiquitous, always-on video devices that are always talking to a server, combined with facial recognition and other AI would allow this, and there seems to be no legal or cultural prohibition against it.

claudius 14y ago

Actually, no. Here (DE), photographers are allowed to take your picture in public if you are not the main component of that picture (with a few extra exceptions). And that’s just for picture taking. For recording (either video or sound), you need to put up signs on private property and you are not allowed to constantly record public places anyways. So, yes, you can have an expectation of privacy in any public place in the meaning of not being covertly recorded and photographed.

betterunix 14y ago
Ah sorry, I was being a bit...American. Here, the only restriction on photography is on commercial use.
- claudius 14y ago
  (Un)fortunately, Google Glass is not restricted to the states.