702
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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
[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 143 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I remember when Google glasses came out, people got assaulted for wearing them

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-woman-says-she-was-attacked-for-wearing-google-glass/

Her Facebook post 💀

“OMG so you’ll never believe this but… I got verbally and physically assaulted and robbed last night in the city, had things thrown at me because of some ---- Google Glass haters,” Slocum posted to Facebook.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 69 points 1 year ago

Several bars in my city banned people wearing them.

[-] briongloid@aussie.zone 22 points 1 year ago

Venues will just need to implement infrared checks at the door.

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

A simple solution would be to have a red led that displays when recording like video cameras

[-] plz1@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

The fix for that is a Sharpie or electrical tape, like all other LED's you want to hide.

[-] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

IANAL

Aren't there laws about being recorded without permission?

Any evidence gained by illegal means is inadmissible?

[-] Kage520@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Depends on where you are I think

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] erwan@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

The Meta smart glasses have a LED, and they claim to detect when it's covered and asked the user to clear it (not activating the camera) when it's the case.

But honestly, there are already devices to record people without their consent. Just go to AliExpress and you'll find devices that don't even bother adding a LED (because the whole point of the device is stealth filming).

[-] DaisyLee@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

They have lights that pulse around each of the cameras when turned on. Seems like a good enough indicator to me

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 33 points 1 year ago

The trick is now you can’t tell. Should it be illegal? Heck yes. Will it? “Hmm … technology, so important … innovation.. privacy is dead anyway …. terrorism prevention.. “

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago

Should it be illegal?

In the US, it's been long held people do not have the "expectation of privacy" while out in public. One of the major issues that you've kinda touched on is how would it be enforced? So are you opposed to all forms of recording? Or is this more focused on a corporation potentially gathering data on people just by being in public where someone is wearing these?

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 27 points 1 year ago

IMO expectation of privacy is valid, but I believe people should also have the right to reasonably know if they're being recorded. Recording people in public's one thing if you have your phone out and are waving it around pointing it at people, but it's a whole other thing if it's a concealed or otherwise hidden recording device.

[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 7 points 1 year ago

I just kind of assume my phone is going to give out more information than a camera ever could, so the very least those companies can do is give me access to that data.

[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

There's a difference between "on apple's servers" and "a million people harassing you after being pulled into a Livestream against your will" though.

Both are bad, one is worse.

[-] khepri@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we're out in public? And what would "knowing that you're being recorded" consist of? Like if there's a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don't see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says "cameras in use" is that enough? It's just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there's really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it's range in public.

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 5 points 1 year ago

When I say to "reasonably know", I don't mean everyone must be aware, but moreso that if you look around, not looking for cameras necessarily, you should notice it. The "reasonable person" standard is one that's commonly used in law, to describe the nature of something, even if the letter of it isn't necessarily true.

That said, assuming we're talking American law, this would all come down to case law anyways. A majority of American law isn't what's on the books, but what's worked out in court rooms across the country based on written legislation. Judges end up hashing out what the written law actually intends to mean (or in many cases what it should intend).

For my personal standards, I don't think even a sign is necessary. So long as it's in plain sight. Phone cameras are largely identifiable by the manner in which people hold their phones when recording others, so that would also be something I'd consider passing this "reasonable person" standard. Cameras built into pens and sunglasses though are very obviously intended to be concealed, and as such wouldn't without there being other ways to identify it; such as if it was told to those who'd be in range of the lens that they'd be recorded by this device.

There'd definitely be a lot of back and forth to hash out appropriate legislation, but I think it's very doable without significantly impacting the daily lives of people today.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's only valid in private venues. We don't know when were being recorded now and have not really known for decades. This isn't going to change anything on that front.

But something to detect their emissions etc in private venues would be a good idea. That or deployable jamming for Bluetooth and WiFi etc on site.

[-] ram@bookwormstory.social 3 points 1 year ago

It’s only valid in private venues. We don’t know when were being recorded now and have not really known for decades. This isn’t going to change anything on that front.

Ya, and I think that's something that should change. I should have the right to, within reason, be able to know I'm being recorded at any time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

I think we're getting to the point where "expectation of privacy" and "expectation of not being uploaded" need to be separated.

I fully agree with the idea that there should be no expectation of privacy in public, but I also don't think filming some random person and posting them online should be carte blanche allowed.

[-] khepri@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

The problem is you won't know you're being recorded in private either.

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Also in the US, there has been this bizarre expectation that "if it's illegal, it will go away", which is how we have this shitty War on (some) Drugs, "assault" "weapon" bans, and people thinking that we have to completely outlaw AI.

The tech is here. It's going to be legal. We just have to figure out how to deal with it.

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.

[-] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 1 year 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. 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] ilmagico@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I guess you're speaking for the USA, or whatever country you live in, but @ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world seemed to speak about a different (unspecified) country. We're left to guess which country...

(also, Godwin's law still applies lol)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] khepri@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

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

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Have you ever been to a theater? Taking photos is banned despite allowing in the public. Please explain.

Again. The theatre owners set the rules.

The same as your bar example. If you owned a building or business then you can set the rules or make people leave.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] IthronMorn@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

How do you know my phone isn't just recording you? Doesn't even have to really be pointing at you to grab audio or perhaps you even in the corner of the frame?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I don't, but it's far more likely for me to catch you doing it that way than with glasses.

[-] 2Xtreme21@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure there are at least some limitations to that. In a public toilet for instance…

The key is the phrasing reasonable expectation of privacy.

A bathroom is such a place where you would reasonably expect privacy.

[-] thehatfox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

How would banning these be enforceable though? They are only going to get more discreet, they will eventually appear completely indistinguishable from regular glasses.

There are certain ways to detect cameras, such as monitoring for infrared, but that would not work for all camera tech and could be hard to triangulate to exact people in crowded areas. There are also ways to detect electronic devices on a person but doing so could quickly become just as invasive in other ways.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DaCookeyMonsta@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think some cameras will "pop out" on your screen if you take a picture of them, right?

What a shitty future ahead of us. "Why are you taking a picture of me?!" "Because you're wearing some suspicious glasses and I want to make sure that you are not recording me. Yup. There they are."

Edit: well, after seeing some pictures, you can still tell that the cameras are there. But you have to be looking for them, which is still shitty.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's only if it sends infrared signal (for example it has night vision). I don't think anything will show up with these.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] realitista@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

What will be the new name for Glassholes in the Meta era?

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
702 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

63082 readers
3113 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS