662
Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’ (nypost.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
245 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’::These stylish shades may look like a regular pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but they're actually Meta's new Smart Glasses, complete with two tiny cameras and speakers implanted in the arms. The wearable tech was unveiled by Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday at the 2023 Meta Connect conference in Menlo Park, California, sparking a frenzy online.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Why should it be illegal?

It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public. You’re in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance.

Sure some weirdos might I use it for nefarious reasons but if it didn’t exist they would still be weirdos using something else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record. Places where you would not be allowed to hold up your phone or camera and take photos.

    The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you demands a change to the legal framework. It doesn't make sense to hold to laws that were written for an entirely different scenario.

    I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance

    I've seen that fairly often, particularly around political protests, and I've never seen a CCTV camera in a public bathroom, locker room, etc.

    This tech is an inevitability and the potential legitimate uses are too valuable to ban it outright. But that doesn't mean it should be treated exactly like a highly-visible camera or cell phone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record.

    VERY solid point.

    The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you

    This isn't new tech though. I can record on the down-low now and have been able to for some time.

    People attacking Glasses users are ignorant of this fact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public.

    Depends on your legislation.

    Here it's the other way round.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Which 3rd world country? Otherwise you got Brazil (is in some places), Spain, and Switzerland (Gotta love fascist money, money laundering, and nazi gold).

    https://www.bobbooks.co.uk/blog-post/10-places-around-the-world-where-photography-is-banned

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Germany for example. Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It's more of a "it really depends" kind of situation, and people might even have the right to defend themselves if you take pictures of them illegally. German source

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Ok, now you and I are in a private place. Say, a bar. How do I know you're not recording me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    A bar, where the public congregates, sounds like a public place (and would be considered so in my country).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that's what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren't publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that "pub" literally means "public" but they aren't owned by some government entity, you don't have a "right" to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can't take place there are set by the private owners.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A bar is privately-owned. How is it a public place?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    It's "public". But that would be the same as filming you in your own house. If it's a friend you invited over, they could record you and it's on you to indicate your opposition and kick them out/trespass them should they refuse to comply.

    Now in the private bar, the other patrons are allowed to be there and there's no law prohibiting them from recording (excepting places like a bathroom of course). If the bar tells them not to record, they can comply or be asked to leave. If the bar doesn't tell them to leave, it's on you to leave. Consider if a nazi walked into the bar. They have the right to be a nazi and go to bars. Bars have the right to refuse or provide service to whomever (so long as it doesn't target a protected class). You have no more right to be at the bar than the nazi or person filming (absent some other condition like the bar telling them to leave).

    Tl:Dr - it's not public in the legal sense. However civil law takes over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The bar is a public place in that they allow in the public. You have no expectation of privacy there.

    However the bar owner as the owner can explicitly ban photography and that’s fine it’s their bar , but they have to explicitly let people know the rules.

    You ever been to a bar or a club? People are talking photos everywhere lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Point of clarification. It's not "public" in the legal sense. Might be why you're catching some downvotes. The rest of it is pretty much on point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •