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.

  • ram@bookwormstory.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    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.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ring doorbells, and the like, are everywhere. Hell, I had a bear cruise in the dog door a couple of years ago. Neighbors produced security cam pics and I had no clue they had cameras!

      At this point, we might as well assume we’re being recorded the moment we step out our front door.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • Kalkaline @leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It would be a nice to have. But there is no realistic way to do that. It is an unreasonable request. At any point in time when you are outside you are being observed by any number of satellites. Through any number of windows. From all number of arbitrary distances. You may as well request omniscience. Since you have an equal chance of obtaining it.