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
[–] -4 points 4 months ago (27 children)

invading our privacy in public

Stop and think about what you just said for a second. Privacy…..in public. You have no privacy in public, those are opposites.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (26 children)

    There's degrees of privacy. People don't deserve to be recorded 24/7 just because they happen to be outside.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (23 children)

    They don’t “deserve” to, but it is not illegal if they are. If you’re in a public space you shouldn’t expect privacy…..because you’re in a public place. That’s pretty obvious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    Something being legal doesn't make it morally correct and the rest of us should oppose this shit in every way we can, not simply expect it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    Oppose what, that you can be filmed or photographed without explicit consent when you’re in public?

    So if I go to the Eiffel Tower, I have to go and ask the hundreds of other people there if they consent to me taking their photo simply because they’re in my photo? Or if I see a criminal breaking into a house, I have to ask them if I can take their photo/video if I want to report them and hand over my photos/video to the police?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    creeps.

    the same creeps who can't understand what the problem is. creeps filming women and girls without permission or consent.

    creeps like you apparently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I understand the “problem”, but I understand that if you’re out in public you’re giving up some privacy. This isn’t a hard concept to understand. It’s literally in the name - public. Public is the opposite of private.

    Laws exist around where you can and can’t film, and on the streets you can film. What you do with the footage also has laws around it, but a creep walking around taking photos of fully clothed women in public so he can jerk off to it isn’t breaking any laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    What does that have to do with what I said?

    A creep using them to record in a bathroom would be illegal, light bypassed or not.

    I’m not sure if you’ve realised, but creeps have been finding ways to film women and girls illegally for as long as there have been ways to film women and girls. That doesn’t make everyone taking photos and videos in public a creep like you pretend it does.

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

    if you don't understand the enormous implications on what that link means it's a lost discussion mate.

    creeps have always been creeps. why give them a better tool with higher resolution and plausible deniability?

    god it's like talking to a child

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Snapping a photo or video of your family or a landmark for your personal memories that happens to have some other people in the background is a hell of a lot different than sending a constant stream of everyone you're looking at along with location data to Facebook, Google, the government, and whoever the fuck else. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. And yes if you're going to be uploading someones image online I do think you should have their permission.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    That’s not what is being discussed though (streaming video to fb/google/government/etc).

    That’s where it would start crossing the line into surveillance, which has strict laws around it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    You think Facebook smart glasses aren't sending the video anywhere? Their entire business model is harvesting data on people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    You think they are? How?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    The same way smartphones do, either streaming it or by uploading to whatever cloud "backup" they're connected to. Again, I should not have to explain this to you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    They’re factually not though. If you’ve somehow caught them doing it, transferring gigs and gigs and gigs of data per hour, provide the evidence please. These claims of yours are simple to prove if true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    They factually are. Stop fucking lying. It to 10 seconds to look this up. https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/1384089832459749/

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

    That’s if you choose to live stream. You spoke like it was doing it all the time.

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

    Unless these companies are offering some means for the rest of us to restrict smart glass wearers from filming whenever the fuck they want the only sane option is to treat them as if they are doing it all the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    There are no means for the rest of us to restric smartphone owners from filming whenever they want, are there? Should all people carrying a phone be treated as if they’re doing it all the time too?

    Look, at the end of the day if you’re in public you can’t control other people being able to see you or take photos/videos of you. There are already laws around filing in private areas of public places, so nothing really needs to change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    No there aren't and I consider that to be a big problem. As I said before I don't think you should be allowed to put other people's images online without their consent. That said I can see when someone has a smartphone out and pointed at my face so I can tell them to stop filming me or move out of the frame. I cannot tell whether a pair of smart glasses are filming or not or even if they are smart glasses which makes them a bigger privacy issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Perhaps your future camera could automatically fog any individual that you haven't received prior consent from.

    And yes, I realise this idea has a number of technological requirements that may not exist yet, or cannot reliably exist ever, and requires the trusting of some authority in a world where noone of that esteem seem to be able to exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent