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
[–] 36 points 3 months ago (26 children)

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

Isn't this all public cameras?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Except that these cameras easily go anywhere, they aren't just outside on the street.

    Spas? Pools? Gyms Locker rooms? Find a nice spot sitting on a bench near a women's dressing room at the mall that peeks in a bit? Set your glasses at your side and record while you look ahead at your phone, not freaking anyone out. They're pervert enablers just as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.

    CSAM is Child Sexual Assault Media, and Grok is not providing that, it's providing Child Pornography.

    You are comparing making non-consensual material with real people to generating material with no real people (based off real media, though, but that's an implication with everything AI-generated).

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

    If you spend some time understanding how AI image generation works, it's essentially iterating on known images to make images that are probably also close to what it was rained on.

    So if someone took some CSAM pictures printed up, and cut them up and made a collage, is that no longer CSAM? Of course not. It's still CSAM. If someone took digital CSAM images and photoshoped the victims into different settings, it's still CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material.

    If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of "a man sitting on a chair" the man will look vaguely Rwandan.

    When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin'-nough. Real people's victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.

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

    it’s essentially iterating on known images

    No. It's iterating on the common traits of known images compressed plus lots of randomization.

    If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.

    If you train a model on adult pornography and non-pornography with children and adults alike, it might be capable of generating plausible child pornography.

    When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.

    I've just told you how this is not true.

    You seem to have that "all or nothing" mindset in an argument, as if you really didn't like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.

    Point being that child pornography without real victims is something not contested here and has its own implications. You are trying to argue on something out of reach.

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

    Do you honestly think people who make AI CP and want to see CP are training models on a ton of things to get them close, and then figuring out how to nudge it all just a bit further? Or do the people already in the CSAM world with access to CSAM that want to make CP just use the CSAM to train the model? I expect the second. Meaning there's victims.

    Plus, it's disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn't just in general. It's weird that you're defending it like it's diet coke or something.

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

    Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.

    "It's disgusting" is not quite the right argument for making something illegal.

    And that "you're defending" presupposition should honestly be your last claim in any group of people before being shown the door.

    You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.

    Quoting myself.

    I "honestly think" each case is unique. Just like with everything else.

    CP is harmful due to normalizing the thing, useful due to redirecting some of the energy people with that pathology have away from, you know, real children.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, in a way.

    Privacy laws are a little complicated but not that bad.

    In this case Europe sees filming in public, while concealing the fact, not legal.

    Conversely, if you are filming and it is very clear that you are(ie a camera, film crew etc) and you are not singling out anyone who doesnt want to be recorded then it is perfectly legal to film in public.

    Do you see how it works now and how these Ray-Ban glasses go against this?

    Its legal to record in public as long as you respect the privacy of others. Of course they can always be a background figure if they are not focused on but making them the star of your production without consent makes it very illegal and immoral in my opinion.

    Have a great day!

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

    I work in the field, in Europe, and can confirm this is about right. There are also situations where you start needing permits to film, either because it's private property or even public property if you start having to put down a lot of equipment and crew.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    I think the difference that most people overlook, is that she doesn't know. It's a "hidden" camera. If they were holding up a phone or dslr, people would know to get out of the shot if they didn't want to be filmed. Plus, it's Europe, they're probably better about privacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)

    Except the camera outside every shop and on every streetcorner, yeah!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yes, and many of those are illegal as well. Many home cameras (as part of video doorbells) are pointed at public streets, and they are usually illegal as well.

    See for example: https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/themes/camera-surveillance/camera-surveillance-at-organisations/rules-for-camera-surveillance-for-organisations

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

    Most countries don't have laws against recording public areas though, and generally as long as it's not for commercial use even the ones that do haven't set a precedent against it. The problem is when people are being recorded in compromising situations and in those cases it's usually illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I see what you're driving at, but CCTV cameras are recording 24/7 on the offchance that the footage is needed, just in case, by a body who is often regulated and monitored. Whereas the concern with the glasses is that they are operated by an otherwise anonymous individual and the recording is more likely to be targeted rather than a broadly cast net.

    The very reason the first camera phones had to be re-engineered to add mandatory shutter sounds to them.

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

    The very reason the first camera phones had to be re-engineered to add mandatory shutter sounds to them.

    What?!?

    Think about what you are saying for the love of all existence.

    Volume buttons have always existed on cell phones. Your statement makes no sense.

    Have a good day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Recording camera in public sources are subject to the EU law. You can't install then without authorization and their use is reglemented.

    I don't know if it's there case in all the EU but for example in France people need to be informed by a sign of a camera is recording the area, they can't record the entrance of private houses ...

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

    In the US installation of cameras is actually pretty similar, but it's a property thing more than a privacy thing.

    For instance, Flock made a deal with a local HOA to install cameras, but the fence lines for the houses are at the property line, so where they're wanting to place the cameras is in the public right-of-way. So they need to request a license to encroach into public property with private improvements.

    However, cameras on private property facing public property are perfectly legal. And any private space visible from public property also has no "reasonable expectation of privacy."

    Private property in public view not having an expectation of privacy sounds insane, but prohibiting recording of publicly-visible property essentially bans almost all outdoor recording of any kind because some private property is probably going to be somewhere in the frame.

    If I take a selfie in the break room of my office (2nd floor), the background will include bits of dozens of private properties through the window.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent