801
Women in Brussels 'filmed without their knowledge' by men wearing Meta smart glasses (www.brusselstimes.com)
submitted 4 months ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
321 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 4 months ago (59 children)

I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The cameras on poles can't see literally everywhere, and can't physically follow you around.

    And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.

    MetaCreepSpecs don't have any such restrictions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Ok. How is this different from cameras on phones, or cameras hidden in shirt button?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.

    These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.

    They both need to go.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Which is why I said neither of these should be acceptable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Which is why I said I completely agree. Just adding some context..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (40 children)

    Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.

    Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable

    Camera's on poles are obvious, they are mostly immobile apart from some pan tilt zoom, they are subject to privacy and data retention laws, they are announced with signage, they serve a specific public or private interest (like security), they are some auditable entity's respontibility and they don't have anywhere near the resolution you can get on the ground with a camera strapped to your face.

    The guy with the meta glasses is a huge questionmark on all of that, including intentions and when they are actually recording.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (3 replies)