In the US, everyone has the right to record what’s happening in public. Private settings are different, of course.
I know we’re talking about Europe here but I’m genuinely curious how it improves things to make it “obvious” other than annoying legitimate users and doing nothing at all to people who actually want to record people in secret.
Basically, it sounds like the pointless cookie warnings all over again.
Not everybody is fine with having their face be recorded and get put in a Meta ad or put on PornHub etc. If you know you’re being recorded, you can hold them liable
Again, you’re assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.
The only reason why there’s not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they’re actually selling.
Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.
Nope, I didn’t say that’s the only way the data will be handled. I did say that a big portion of it might be advertising and other privacy abuses in exchange for money. There’d be great value in smart glasses and at scale for helping near blind people around or people with dementia and the glasses reminding them, showing them stuff they already had forgotten like their payment details or children. But mostly there are gonna be assholes shooting videos of their dates or women in parks without them knowing, making deepfakes from them, jerking off, you get the idea. A blinking red light on smart glasses when recording would be a start at least
My stance is that there’s always going to be assholes. Trying to stop them ahead of time by banning technology won’t stop them but it will stop legitimate uses of said technology.
Regulations that would probably be fine:
Require recording lights.
Require shutter sounds.
…because those don’t halt the technology. They’re just mild annoyances for regular users. To me, that’s like “your car needs working headlights and tail lights.”
When I see people asking for “glasses + camera” to be outright banned my alarm bells go off. Both of these things already exist and there’s nothing stopping someone from strapping a cell phone or GoPro to their head. Banning such technology feels like burying your head in the sand because you saw someone doing something you don’t like with a technology you haven’t seen before.
Because then you get a chance to control your image. It’s a reminder that you’re being recorded, assuming you’re always recorded isn’t practical.
You’re also at that point have the right to express your annoyance, perverts for example will get shamed immediately and in public.
Forcing manufacturers too will help curb illegal recording in private places (offenders will have to work harder to hide the fact that they’re recording)
Always assume you’re being recorded in public because you are. You’re not even talking about that: You’re talking about preventing normal citizens from being able to record in public. Yet government will still have that power. That’s exactly what’s going on with Flock cameras.
You can regulate sales of hidden cameras in your country, but you can’t stop their manufacture or general availability because they’re literally designed to be undetectable. Anyone can buy them online and they always will be able to.
I could design my own PCB with a tiny CCD and put together a case with whatever lens I want. In your scenario, would I require a license to order such a PCB? Like it’s a gun or something?
How would you even know that it’s meant to be a camera for recording people? It could just be an environment monitoring sensor or a security device that sounds an alarm whenever it detects motion.
You brought up the practicality of things… What you propose is highly impractical.
I’m advocating for making it obvious when someone is and preventing data processing of individuals without their consent (that includes google photos ML/face recognition).
You can design and manufacture many illegal things and yet that’s not common practice because if you get caught you’ll get punished. E.g. you can make bombs at home and yet I don’t see bombs being common outside.
In the scenario where you want to make your own camera you’d need to e.g. have to have a bright red led when it records. Or the camera modules being sold will already have that. That’s it. Hiding one would be get you fined if used.
Today you can physically put a recording device in someone’s home, that’s entirely illegal where I live and yet people just don’t do that.
As for knowing you’re always being recorded - unless you’re a method actor or put in the effort you won’t always keep that in mind the entire time you’re outside. But I bet if a TV crew points their camera at you, you’ll behave differently (or at least your awareness will change)
Why does it need to be obvious?
In the US, everyone has the right to record what’s happening in public. Private settings are different, of course.
I know we’re talking about Europe here but I’m genuinely curious how it improves things to make it “obvious” other than annoying legitimate users and doing nothing at all to people who actually want to record people in secret.
Basically, it sounds like the pointless cookie warnings all over again.
Not everybody is fine with having their face be recorded and get put in a Meta ad or put on PornHub etc. If you know you’re being recorded, you can hold them liable
Again, you’re assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.
The only reason why there’s not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they’re actually selling.
Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.
Nope, I didn’t say that’s the only way the data will be handled. I did say that a big portion of it might be advertising and other privacy abuses in exchange for money. There’d be great value in smart glasses and at scale for helping near blind people around or people with dementia and the glasses reminding them, showing them stuff they already had forgotten like their payment details or children. But mostly there are gonna be assholes shooting videos of their dates or women in parks without them knowing, making deepfakes from them, jerking off, you get the idea. A blinking red light on smart glasses when recording would be a start at least
My stance is that there’s always going to be assholes. Trying to stop them ahead of time by banning technology won’t stop them but it will stop legitimate uses of said technology.
Regulations that would probably be fine:
…because those don’t halt the technology. They’re just mild annoyances for regular users. To me, that’s like “your car needs working headlights and tail lights.”
When I see people asking for “glasses + camera” to be outright banned my alarm bells go off. Both of these things already exist and there’s nothing stopping someone from strapping a cell phone or GoPro to their head. Banning such technology feels like burying your head in the sand because you saw someone doing something you don’t like with a technology you haven’t seen before.
Because then you get a chance to control your image. It’s a reminder that you’re being recorded, assuming you’re always recorded isn’t practical. You’re also at that point have the right to express your annoyance, perverts for example will get shamed immediately and in public.
Forcing manufacturers too will help curb illegal recording in private places (offenders will have to work harder to hide the fact that they’re recording)
Always assume you’re being recorded in public because you are. You’re not even talking about that: You’re talking about preventing normal citizens from being able to record in public. Yet government will still have that power. That’s exactly what’s going on with Flock cameras.
You can regulate sales of hidden cameras in your country, but you can’t stop their manufacture or general availability because they’re literally designed to be undetectable. Anyone can buy them online and they always will be able to.
I could design my own PCB with a tiny CCD and put together a case with whatever lens I want. In your scenario, would I require a license to order such a PCB? Like it’s a gun or something?
How would you even know that it’s meant to be a camera for recording people? It could just be an environment monitoring sensor or a security device that sounds an alarm whenever it detects motion.
You brought up the practicality of things… What you propose is highly impractical.
I’m advocating for making it obvious when someone is and preventing data processing of individuals without their consent (that includes google photos ML/face recognition).
You can design and manufacture many illegal things and yet that’s not common practice because if you get caught you’ll get punished. E.g. you can make bombs at home and yet I don’t see bombs being common outside.
In the scenario where you want to make your own camera you’d need to e.g. have to have a bright red led when it records. Or the camera modules being sold will already have that. That’s it. Hiding one would be get you fined if used. Today you can physically put a recording device in someone’s home, that’s entirely illegal where I live and yet people just don’t do that.
As for knowing you’re always being recorded - unless you’re a method actor or put in the effort you won’t always keep that in mind the entire time you’re outside. But I bet if a TV crew points their camera at you, you’ll behave differently (or at least your awareness will change)