Does anyone else remember in the early 2000s the concerns around privacy with cell phone cameras? [0][1][2][3]. How long until people feel the same way about camera glasses?
I was a student who would wear my Google Glass out and about (in the UK) and no one ever said anything negative. Of course, they might've looked at me and thought I was a glasshole. Most people I interacted with were intrigued by the novelty.
I'd like to see this framed as a ban on surreptitious recording, not specific to glasses. But it's a little hard to figure out exactly what the parameters should be.
It's a partial ban of smart glasses, so presumably either the left lens or the right lens will be banned. That leaves a monocle, so it will definitely be OK.
Brilliant Labs was selling one for quite a while, but it looks like it was discontinued in favor of their new, more standard device https://docs.brilliant.xyz/monocle/monocle/
I would not recommend. Whenever a rambunctious youth acts against my well-founded advice, mine pops off and I must replace it quickly lest I miss any moment of the cricket match.
Why isn't the publishing of the captured video banned? If you want to upload content involving someone else (not just in the background) in it then you should need consent.
In this example smart glasses are the equivalent of walking around pointing a gun. Obviously shooting the gun is the real issue but simply pointing it around alarms people and fatigues them to spotting a real threat.
Smart glasses should not be allowed to have a camera always pointed at people. If needed, let them integrate with a phone to use the camera which is much more visually obvious to people when it is being used.
Because you need to do both. Recording creates material that can be damaging and distribution realizes that potential. Banning the first is more effective, banning the second should come with additional penalties because it proves you did the first and then went on to the second presumably willfully ignoring two different legal aspects, creation and distribution.
The point is if you’re recording with a handheld device at least you can ensure there is some level of awareness to those around who can duck/signal they don’t want to be in it.
If it were made illegal then news journalism, documentary filmmaking, sports broadcasting (crowds), street photography, and police-body camera footage would become extinct almost overnight.
> We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge
Isn't everyone already carrying an expensive wiretap around with them at all times anyway? Is the only difference that people don't know or care how their smartphone can be made to record everything they say and thus they don't worry?
A temporary measure.
Knowing the current regime they will use years & millions on comittees, reports, reviews, expert groups and all kinds of bureaucratic wage labor I don't have english vocabulary for. And then, the EU, which we a not a member of, decides everything behind our back.
The "democratic" processes in EU seems rather opaque and hidden from my point of view. Not like the rest of norwegian politics. Just ... here's the latest batch of out-of-touch decisions from Brussel.
It's not opaque so much as under-reported. It's under-reported because it's tedious.
I get weeklies about the machinations of my own country's parliament. It is almost entirely dull. The small amount of salacious action is seized upon by news outlets. Upshot: the plebs falsely believe they are informed.
The EU is like this but much more so. The vast amount of stuff is technical and boring. What you do read is likely removed from context and sexed-up to generate clicks. Does the EU do bass and stupid things? Yes. Is that what you're reading about? Unlikely, unless you're a politics junkie with a high tolerance for trade documents.
These smart glasses could unravel some quite profound things about the populace that won't be shared with us. Maybe it's all about easing people into intrabody chips and brain interfaces.
> The ban could apply to parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, daycare centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events.
True - many places where photography and video recording by people and organizations is already done on a broad scale with both smartphones and infrastructure cameras.
> "We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge, photographed, or filmed in places and situations where they are accustomed to not being monitored"
This seems similar to how much of East Asia requires a “click” sound from camera apps, to prevent surreptitious photos, or how some US states require both parties to consent when recording audio of a conversation. There’s plenty of precedent for privacy laws related to public recording, across the world. And they don’t have to be perfect—the goal is to limit access to casual snooping and creepshots, and to ensure that those who habitually violate privacy can be prosecuted if caught.
Just because you’re in public doesn’t mean it’s ok to take secret upskirt photos, film in the gym showers, etc. There actually is a certain level of privacy expected in public.
Banning harmful behavior (like secretly recording someone) is pretty defensible and not all that controversial. Banning the mere possession of generic tools that could potentially be used to engage in harmful behavior is a lot more dubious. It requires infringing the rights of a bunch of innocent people merely because they might use that freedom to do something wrong.
I agree in part. Rather than a full ban, it makes more sense to require manufacturers to implement obnoxiously obvious “tells” (blinding LED plus sound perhaps), and to ban commercial businesses that remove these features. No need to ban possession. For DIY creepers a ban on the behavior is enough, they will get caught eventually.
The point is to ban widespread normalization of tools that make invasion of privacy easy. You can go find a shirt button spy cam on Aliexpress, but if you get caught wearing it then everyone knows what you’re up to. Wearing one in certain places could be taken as criminal intent.
(I don’t think restrictions like this would work in the US without an amendment, but I think we’re long overdue for a privacy amendment to clarify some things.)
Single party consent empowers those who are underhanded in uneven situations. For instance, the ability to secretly record my employer, who has far more resources than me, benefits me. I personally benefited in being able to defend myself by using single-party consent for audio recording, which helped me both avoid legal trouble and would have allowed me to offer more evidence had it ever come to actual legal action.
There are two sides to privacy laws, and the downside is not often discussed.
Only issue with that is that enforcing it requires you to make open source smart glasses illegal, since open source software cannot be used to coerce users the way closed-source software can.
Perfect enforcement isn’t required, neither is a ban on DIY solutions. The intent is to prevent normalization. Laws against murder don’t prevent all murders either.
Someone wearing weird 3D printed camera glasses is going to be obvious. Someone with the skill to disassemble a tiny glued together smart glass frame, bypass any hardware protections, and flash a custom OS will be rare, and they’ll get caught anyway when they “accidentally” wander into the women’s locker for the third time.
I don't want people to have to know how to solder to install an open source OS on their personal computing device. That sort of thing should be normal and easy.
So yeah, I guess as long as you're okay with a law like that potentially becoming very easy to bypass then I don't have a problem with it. But I think once things start going down that path, most people aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it at that; they'll hear about a bypass and start pushing to restrict the freedoms that enabled it.
> This seems similar to how much of SE Asia requires a “click” sound from camera apps
I live in "SE Asia" - specifically Vietnam - and I've never heard of such a law. I just looked it up and the two countries that come up are Korea and Japan, neither of which are in SE Asia.
This phrasing seems odd, considering that those two countries are firmly in East Asia, and would not be considered as a part of SE Asia by any definition.
Well to me they’re part of an overall southeastern quadrant, with the northeastern quadrant occupied by Russia. It’s just how I think about things. If you divide it into eight directions plus a central region then it’s clearly East Asia, which is the common way to look at it.
It’s a habit of thought that I should break because it’s not really a common way to look at Asia, which makes communication difficult. It’s almost certainly a habit derived from discussion about the US, which is often discussed as four quadrants plus “the midwest,” which is really the center.
I 100% agree with this outlook. People that have ignored encroaching surveillance for decades at this point are finally concerned once we start suggesting we literally strap them to the face of a sizeable chunk of the population.
Personally, I gave up years ago. People don't care about actual privacy, they just care about the illusion of it.
Do we though, really? Because every single piece of technology that's been slowly eroding adults privacy is doing the same to children.
My argument isn't that we should let "the wrong people" setup their own camera, or strap cameras to their face and walk around, or whatever the next thing is to come along and record people with impunity.
My argument is that, if you want to solve a problem then address the actual problem. In this context, there's no way to know whether someone is a creep before they act on their creep-like nature, so the safest things to do for children is ban recording of all under 18's in public as a strict criminal offense. Security cameras, mobile phones, glasses, implants, whatever.
Today, the suggestion is wildly unthinkable as a complete overreaction, but in the 1990's there was a brief moment where that could have actually been the outcome, at least outside of the USA. I suspect if people knew then what it would look like today - even disregarding smart glasses altogether - that the opposition would have been stronger.
It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".
Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.
I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.
There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.
Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.
Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.
Consent or not, most laws allows that anyway. This is the publication that is usually limited and usually only in cases where people can be too easily recognized. These exceptions are a bit vague on purpose so that it is still easy to publish stuff without having to ask every single person you came accross in the street for their consent.
But the world has changed. For instance last year I recognized my father in a travel video published by a youtuber from another continent. You would have thought that it is no big deal if a latin american can record video of people in europe because its target audience is unlikely to recognize anyone. Yet here we are, people nowadays can have relatives, friends and or former colleagues spread all over the globe, or consuming content published online but targetting a public from very far away.
Until now it wasn't a big deal as it was still easy to spot someone recording a video from quite far and move away or hide your face. And we would rely on good old shame and citizen vigilance to spot people recording kids for example. "spy cameras" used to have such a crappy quality you couldn't do anything too bad without getting close and in good light. Now it becomes a bit complicated with these glasses.
In the US, you have consented. It is settled law that there is no expectation of privacy while you’re in public. This is how paparazzi, among others, can work their trade. If consent were required, every star would ban photos of themselves in public. They can’t and nor can you.
It’s easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someone’s looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.
People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.
Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.
Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.
Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhere—in fact that’s how life works in general.
Just because we haven’t yet beaten ALPRs doesn’t mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.
One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.
Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.
If you don’t like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. It’s like telling doctors not to bother because everyone’s eventually going to die anyway.
I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.
I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.
Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.
You cant expect any privacy in public settings.... also what are the communities that banned these devices going to do once robots (very soon) become ubiquitous in our every day lives? robots need to have vision and will record everything... so they are just delaying the inevitable unless they go full amish in their communities which good luck with that....
Why can you people never draw a line between "my neighbor sees what I do and forgets about it" and "my actions are permanently recorded 24/7 and available to governments, corporations, and stalkers at all times for the rest of my life"?
You are making lots of assumptions here instead of understanding the reality of the world. Nether what you or i think matters in the face of facts, this world is marching towards a world with very little privacy, you can scream at the clouds all you want be my guest...
I protect my privacy, but I have no major problems with these smart glasses. Cameras are everywhere, if they don't want to accept cameras they need to stop the double morals. Law needs to be equal to everyone, not just because there is some high and mighty populist politician that doesn't understand technology or want to ensure that the core principles of protecting apply.
The current regulation is good enough; we don't need more regulation - if anything we should update the existing regulation to ensure we protect our privacy in critical and sensitive places.
we keep forgetting that having cameras readily available is not just a negative thing, it does help provide forensics material in cases where something happens.
that said, we can probably find common ground rules for using these - norwegians are best in class when it comes to adhering to rules and regulations.
You can record all you want, like with the private yard camera, but there should be fines for uploading materials to the public or spyware companies like Meta without explicit consent of the person recorded. And recording without consent inside someone's else private property must be a felony.
Laws prohibiting explicit recording of a person and espionage exist in many countries and they work fine.
Laws will seldom work 100% of the time, but I profoundly disagree with your implied attitude. "They don't cover this future case, so we shouldn't do anything now".
People will take to wearing corrective contact lenses that will have recording capabilities in a few years. This is going to open up a huge can of worms for privacy, cinemas, and more. I did not write that we mustn't do anything about it right now, only that it is short-sighted. Creating laws about wearable recording devices would benefit from addressing near-future technology, which will include easily concealed digitally augmented corrective lenses.
Does anyone else remember in the early 2000s the concerns around privacy with cell phone cameras? [0][1][2][3]. How long until people feel the same way about camera glasses?
[0] New Privacy Menace: Cell Phones? (2003): https://www.wired.com/2003/02/new-privacy-menace-cell-phones...
[1] More trouble for camera-phones (2003): https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2003/06/195-2/
[2] Camera Phones Raise Whole New Set of Privacy Issues (2004): https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/camera-phones-raise-w...
[3] Cam Phones, Go Home (2005): https://time.com/archive/6671091/cam-phones-go-home/
And obviously those concerns were valid.
Until a major manufacturer that isn't Meta shows up.
This happened with Google Glass and the product line was dropped. Glassholes was the term if you need to check the history.
I was a student who would wear my Google Glass out and about (in the UK) and no one ever said anything negative. Of course, they might've looked at me and thought I was a glasshole. Most people I interacted with were intrigued by the novelty.
Same here in Charlottesville, Virginia (U.S.)
We remember.
Some countries mandate that cell phone cameras make a sound.
I'd like to see this framed as a ban on surreptitious recording, not specific to glasses. But it's a little hard to figure out exactly what the parameters should be.
> Norway Eyes Partial Ban of Smart Glasses
I see what you did there.
So a Smart Monocle is ok?
Is it Un-Lubricated and single use ready?
https://wondermark.com/gentlemans-single-use-monocles/
Is it weird that I'd be happier with that? Easier to spot and has a "we're bringing that shit back" vibe that goes well with a disruptive product.
It's still a torment nexus, but at least there's whimsy in this one. Beats the alternative.
It's a partial ban of smart glasses, so presumably either the left lens or the right lens will be banned. That leaves a monocle, so it will definitely be OK.
Brilliant Labs was selling one for quite a while, but it looks like it was discontinued in favor of their new, more standard device https://docs.brilliant.xyz/monocle/monocle/
I would not recommend. Whenever a rambunctious youth acts against my well-founded advice, mine pops off and I must replace it quickly lest I miss any moment of the cricket match.
Only if they are used by janitors.
Why isn't the publishing of the captured video banned? If you want to upload content involving someone else (not just in the background) in it then you should need consent.
That’s already the case. Same question is why guns are regulated when killing someone is already illegal.
In this example smart glasses are the equivalent of walking around pointing a gun. Obviously shooting the gun is the real issue but simply pointing it around alarms people and fatigues them to spotting a real threat.
Smart glasses should not be allowed to have a camera always pointed at people. If needed, let them integrate with a phone to use the camera which is much more visually obvious to people when it is being used.
Agreed, "Brandishing" a recording device should be illegal.
What about a voice recorder?
> Why isn't the publishing of the captured video banned?
It could be, but that's a separate problem. Surreptitiously filming someone can be problematic even if the videos are kept private.
Because you need to do both. Recording creates material that can be damaging and distribution realizes that potential. Banning the first is more effective, banning the second should come with additional penalties because it proves you did the first and then went on to the second presumably willfully ignoring two different legal aspects, creation and distribution.
So security cameras in public spaces are a no go? Dashcams?
Dashcams are banned for example in Germany.
Regulated, not banned.
https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deuts...
It probably also is. But easier to enforce at the time of capture.
Or easier to forbid Meta classes to send all the data into their servers.
Making them completely non functional? Even in private homes?
We can hope
lol what?
The point is if you’re recording with a handheld device at least you can ensure there is some level of awareness to those around who can duck/signal they don’t want to be in it.
How can you do that with meta glasses?
Get real man.
If it were made illegal then news journalism, documentary filmmaking, sports broadcasting (crowds), street photography, and police-body camera footage would become extinct almost overnight.
No, it wouldn't. Countries with such a law exist, all you need is reasonable exceptions. With some blurring even Google Streetview is not an issue.
> We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge
Isn't everyone already carrying an expensive wiretap around with them at all times anyway? Is the only difference that people don't know or care how their smartphone can be made to record everything they say and thus they don't worry?
A temporary measure. Knowing the current regime they will use years & millions on comittees, reports, reviews, expert groups and all kinds of bureaucratic wage labor I don't have english vocabulary for. And then, the EU, which we a not a member of, decides everything behind our back.
It’s not behind your back. It’s what being in the EEA means.
The "democratic" processes in EU seems rather opaque and hidden from my point of view. Not like the rest of norwegian politics. Just ... here's the latest batch of out-of-touch decisions from Brussel.
It's not opaque so much as under-reported. It's under-reported because it's tedious.
I get weeklies about the machinations of my own country's parliament. It is almost entirely dull. The small amount of salacious action is seized upon by news outlets. Upshot: the plebs falsely believe they are informed.
The EU is like this but much more so. The vast amount of stuff is technical and boring. What you do read is likely removed from context and sexed-up to generate clicks. Does the EU do bass and stupid things? Yes. Is that what you're reading about? Unlikely, unless you're a politics junkie with a high tolerance for trade documents.
Hope Sweden copies Norway and bans data fusion for ads data sharing glasses.
These smart glasses could unravel some quite profound things about the populace that won't be shared with us. Maybe it's all about easing people into intrabody chips and brain interfaces.
> The ban could apply to parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, daycare centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events.
True - many places where photography and video recording by people and organizations is already done on a broad scale with both smartphones and infrastructure cameras.
> "We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge, photographed, or filmed in places and situations where they are accustomed to not being monitored"
... I think we're gonna need a bigger ban
This seems similar to how much of East Asia requires a “click” sound from camera apps, to prevent surreptitious photos, or how some US states require both parties to consent when recording audio of a conversation. There’s plenty of precedent for privacy laws related to public recording, across the world. And they don’t have to be perfect—the goal is to limit access to casual snooping and creepshots, and to ensure that those who habitually violate privacy can be prosecuted if caught.
Just because you’re in public doesn’t mean it’s ok to take secret upskirt photos, film in the gym showers, etc. There actually is a certain level of privacy expected in public.
Edit: corrected SE Asia to East Asia.
Banning harmful behavior (like secretly recording someone) is pretty defensible and not all that controversial. Banning the mere possession of generic tools that could potentially be used to engage in harmful behavior is a lot more dubious. It requires infringing the rights of a bunch of innocent people merely because they might use that freedom to do something wrong.
I agree in part. Rather than a full ban, it makes more sense to require manufacturers to implement obnoxiously obvious “tells” (blinding LED plus sound perhaps), and to ban commercial businesses that remove these features. No need to ban possession. For DIY creepers a ban on the behavior is enough, they will get caught eventually.
The point is to ban widespread normalization of tools that make invasion of privacy easy. You can go find a shirt button spy cam on Aliexpress, but if you get caught wearing it then everyone knows what you’re up to. Wearing one in certain places could be taken as criminal intent.
(I don’t think restrictions like this would work in the US without an amendment, but I think we’re long overdue for a privacy amendment to clarify some things.)
Single party consent empowers those who are underhanded in uneven situations. For instance, the ability to secretly record my employer, who has far more resources than me, benefits me. I personally benefited in being able to defend myself by using single-party consent for audio recording, which helped me both avoid legal trouble and would have allowed me to offer more evidence had it ever come to actual legal action.
There are two sides to privacy laws, and the downside is not often discussed.
The obvious solution is to have them behave like drones - where their behavior is geofenced.
Only issue with that is that enforcing it requires you to make open source smart glasses illegal, since open source software cannot be used to coerce users the way closed-source software can.
Perfect enforcement isn’t required, neither is a ban on DIY solutions. The intent is to prevent normalization. Laws against murder don’t prevent all murders either.
Someone wearing weird 3D printed camera glasses is going to be obvious. Someone with the skill to disassemble a tiny glued together smart glass frame, bypass any hardware protections, and flash a custom OS will be rare, and they’ll get caught anyway when they “accidentally” wander into the women’s locker for the third time.
I don't want people to have to know how to solder to install an open source OS on their personal computing device. That sort of thing should be normal and easy.
So yeah, I guess as long as you're okay with a law like that potentially becoming very easy to bypass then I don't have a problem with it. But I think once things start going down that path, most people aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it at that; they'll hear about a bypass and start pushing to restrict the freedoms that enabled it.
> This seems similar to how much of SE Asia requires a “click” sound from camera apps
I live in "SE Asia" - specifically Vietnam - and I've never heard of such a law. I just looked it up and the two countries that come up are Korea and Japan, neither of which are in SE Asia.
I guess you’re right, I always refer to them as SE Asia but it’s technically considered East Asia. Thanks for the correction.
> it’s technically considered East Asia
This phrasing seems odd, considering that those two countries are firmly in East Asia, and would not be considered as a part of SE Asia by any definition.
Well to me they’re part of an overall southeastern quadrant, with the northeastern quadrant occupied by Russia. It’s just how I think about things. If you divide it into eight directions plus a central region then it’s clearly East Asia, which is the common way to look at it.
It’s a habit of thought that I should break because it’s not really a common way to look at Asia, which makes communication difficult. It’s almost certainly a habit derived from discussion about the US, which is often discussed as four quadrants plus “the midwest,” which is really the center.
Yeah, lets also ban smart phones, cameras and recording devices just in case.
This but unironically.
Somebody check this guy’s camera roll
Those kinds of comments usually come from either wrongdoers in denial or paid marketeers defending a policy/product...
Apple already did....hehehe...
I 100% agree with this outlook. People that have ignored encroaching surveillance for decades at this point are finally concerned once we start suggesting we literally strap them to the face of a sizeable chunk of the population.
Personally, I gave up years ago. People don't care about actual privacy, they just care about the illusion of it.
People definitely care about creeps filming children.
Well except for America- there such creeps become pillars of the community.
Do we though, really? Because every single piece of technology that's been slowly eroding adults privacy is doing the same to children.
My argument isn't that we should let "the wrong people" setup their own camera, or strap cameras to their face and walk around, or whatever the next thing is to come along and record people with impunity.
My argument is that, if you want to solve a problem then address the actual problem. In this context, there's no way to know whether someone is a creep before they act on their creep-like nature, so the safest things to do for children is ban recording of all under 18's in public as a strict criminal offense. Security cameras, mobile phones, glasses, implants, whatever.
Today, the suggestion is wildly unthinkable as a complete overreaction, but in the 1990's there was a brief moment where that could have actually been the outcome, at least outside of the USA. I suspect if people knew then what it would look like today - even disregarding smart glasses altogether - that the opposition would have been stronger.
How is different from another device ? Phone, digital camera, etc .. someone can use that for taking the same photo ..
Is it the added convenience of the glasses?
It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".
Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.
Interestingly, in my jurisdiction open carry is banned should concealed carry is not.
I feel like that is for most places in california isn't it? Open carry is illegal but conceal is not.
I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.
There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.
Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.
Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.
I didn't consent to being recorded in public, so don't agree that we just shrug it off.
Consent or not, most laws allows that anyway. This is the publication that is usually limited and usually only in cases where people can be too easily recognized. These exceptions are a bit vague on purpose so that it is still easy to publish stuff without having to ask every single person you came accross in the street for their consent.
But the world has changed. For instance last year I recognized my father in a travel video published by a youtuber from another continent. You would have thought that it is no big deal if a latin american can record video of people in europe because its target audience is unlikely to recognize anyone. Yet here we are, people nowadays can have relatives, friends and or former colleagues spread all over the globe, or consuming content published online but targetting a public from very far away.
Until now it wasn't a big deal as it was still easy to spot someone recording a video from quite far and move away or hide your face. And we would rely on good old shame and citizen vigilance to spot people recording kids for example. "spy cameras" used to have such a crappy quality you couldn't do anything too bad without getting close and in good light. Now it becomes a bit complicated with these glasses.
In the US, you have consented. It is settled law that there is no expectation of privacy while you’re in public. This is how paparazzi, among others, can work their trade. If consent were required, every star would ban photos of themselves in public. They can’t and nor can you.
I'd argue it's not that you consented, it's that the law states that no consent is required.
And it's hard to call it consent when the alternative is never going in public which is infeasible for most people.
That’s a subtle but compelling distinction. Thanks.
It’s easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someone’s looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.
Smart glasses that were clearly designed and visible were odious and shunned, so Meta (et al) have developed covert designs instead.
It's the same as a buttonhole camera used for spying. The differentiator (vs a phone or SLR or similar) is that its primary function is concealed.
I don't understand how this question can be asked in good faith?
If you have to defend smart glasses based on a technicality, that doesn't reflect very well on the glasses.
People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.
Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.
Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.
Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhere—in fact that’s how life works in general.
Just because we haven’t yet beaten ALPRs doesn’t mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.
One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.
Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.
If you don’t like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. It’s like telling doctors not to bother because everyone’s eventually going to die anyway.
I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.
I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.
Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.
Are you talking about Norway, or some other place?
You cant expect any privacy in public settings.... also what are the communities that banned these devices going to do once robots (very soon) become ubiquitous in our every day lives? robots need to have vision and will record everything... so they are just delaying the inevitable unless they go full amish in their communities which good luck with that....
Streakers did not expect privacy, they expected not to be recorded in hi-def video and shared with millions of people.
I'm betting that the streaking has gone down as cameras have gone up.
Why can you people never draw a line between "my neighbor sees what I do and forgets about it" and "my actions are permanently recorded 24/7 and available to governments, corporations, and stalkers at all times for the rest of my life"?
You are making lots of assumptions here instead of understanding the reality of the world. Nether what you or i think matters in the face of facts, this world is marching towards a world with very little privacy, you can scream at the clouds all you want be my guest...
That future is avoidable, but not with this self-fulfilling prophecy mindset.
I protect my privacy, but I have no major problems with these smart glasses. Cameras are everywhere, if they don't want to accept cameras they need to stop the double morals. Law needs to be equal to everyone, not just because there is some high and mighty populist politician that doesn't understand technology or want to ensure that the core principles of protecting apply.
The current regulation is good enough; we don't need more regulation - if anything we should update the existing regulation to ensure we protect our privacy in critical and sensitive places.
we keep forgetting that having cameras readily available is not just a negative thing, it does help provide forensics material in cases where something happens.
that said, we can probably find common ground rules for using these - norwegians are best in class when it comes to adhering to rules and regulations.
You can record all you want, like with the private yard camera, but there should be fines for uploading materials to the public or spyware companies like Meta without explicit consent of the person recorded. And recording without consent inside someone's else private property must be a felony.
Laws prohibiting explicit recording of a person and espionage exist in many countries and they work fine.
This is short-sighted; smart contacts are viable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-51137379
Pun intended?
Laws will seldom work 100% of the time, but I profoundly disagree with your implied attitude. "They don't cover this future case, so we shouldn't do anything now".
> Pun intended?
Guilty.
> I profoundly disagree
People will take to wearing corrective contact lenses that will have recording capabilities in a few years. This is going to open up a huge can of worms for privacy, cinemas, and more. I did not write that we mustn't do anything about it right now, only that it is short-sighted. Creating laws about wearable recording devices would benefit from addressing near-future technology, which will include easily concealed digitally augmented corrective lenses.
* https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/vil-innfore-midlertidi...
* https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/dfd/org/minister-of-digita...
* Contact: postmottak@dfd.dep.no
Do they have cameras and recording?