“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.
Who could have predicted this?
I honestly don’t understand why these glasses have become so mainstream
Have they? I’ve never seen anyone wearing them.
You haven’t seen them, but they’ve seen you.
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.
You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?
Supposedly there is a sensor that detects if the recording light is covered and disables the camera, so it’s about bypassing that.
as intended.
If only they had a “legitimate public-interest justification”, then they could feed it straight into Brussels’ Regional Informatics Center (BRIC), together with the thousands of public cameras from: police stations, the subway system, the port of Brussels, the fire and emergency medical assistance department, and the public service department responsible for traffic management, signals and tunnels; to be analyzed by video analytics tools (alerting operators upon “illegal parking or a large group of people, for example”, bookmarking video clips with movement, and where the “next step will be to integrate facial and number plate recognition”), as reported in their Genetec customer story…
“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?
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!
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.
And private smart phones.
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.
Also true for spy cameras. And they don’t have the disadvantage of needing to be attached to a person to work.
Thats already illegal we don’t need more laws for that, just enforcement.
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).
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
100% correct.
Also, Quebec (not sure about anywhere else in the world) has the same kind of laws, so not just Europe.
Except the camera outside every shop and on every streetcorner, yeah!
Those aren’t looking up her skirt, down her shirt, at your crotch or seeing your plumber’s crack, just for that purpose.
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.
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.
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.
I think the mandatory shutter sound is a Japan-only thing.
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.
Cell phones in Japan must have an audible shutter sound. Pretty sure turning down the volume isn’t enough to silence it.
… and water is wet?
I’m being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go
I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable
I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable
Camera’s on poles are obvious, they are mostly immobile apart from some pan tilt zoom, they are subject to privacy and data retention laws, they are announced with signage, they serve a specific public or private interest (like security), they are some auditable entity’s respontibility and they don’t have anywhere near the resolution you can get on the ground with a camera strapped to your face.
The guy with the meta glasses is a huge questionmark on all of that, including intentions and when they are actually recording.
I trust individuals with a camera or two far more than I trust the government with cameras everywhere.
The cameras on poles can’t see literally everywhere, and can’t physically follow you around.
And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.
MetaCreepSpecs don’t have any such restrictions.
Ok. How is this different from cameras on phones, or cameras hidden in shirt button?
It is like a camera hidden in a shirt button and that’s exactly the problem.
It’s not, and the same rules apply to those.
It wouldn’t historically be crazy to take your sunglasses into a locker room or bathroom, for example. Now? WTF DUDE. YOU SOME KIND OF CREEP!?
The cameras on poles are meant for public spaces and security. Meta glasses are for whatever the fuck the wearer will intend the recordings for for private use.
The article is about people being filmed in public places though.
Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.
These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.
They both need to go.
Which is why I said neither of these should be acceptable.
Which is why I said I completely agree. Just adding some context…
Oh sorry. Reading comprehension is not my strong point… 😀 Carry on.
No worries, we’re all friends here. Carry on yourself :)
One is state approved surveillance. The other is just a camera that is limited in scope, view, and usage.
This is what I don’t get either. We literally have dozens of various camera options monitoring us in public, from random video doorbells to store CCTV, state/police CCTV, Google Maps cars, people on their phones, police officers and even random hired security thugs posing around with wearable cameras, drones, you name it… but the problem is cameras built into glasses?
Most European countries have actually codified that one has no expectations of privacy in public - that is, one may be recorded while out and about. Of course there’s legislations about harassment - e.g. following someone with a camera and specifically recording them, in an attempt to harass or threaten them - and what essentially constitutes as blackmail (“I’ll remove this video of you if you pay me”), so people should be using the recourse for those crimes, not criminalising a new product category.
Just owning a camera didn’t make upskirt photos legal, nor does using a Meta camera glass make harassment legal.
Do you know the meaning of CCTV?
Also yes, you can have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in public – within reason.Legally, you don’t.
And while indeed CCTV used to mean that it’s closed circuit, today it now refers simply to camera systems installed for public (in the sense of non-clandestine) surveillance purposes. Given most these systems are cloud connected, they’re hardly closed circuit, right? Yet we still use the term.
The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a world where Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams come true.
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
Glassholes.
Right? It’s a collab between Meta and Ray-Ban ffs, what kind of people did they think were going to be buying them?
I kinda like Ray-Ban (their luxotica ties notwithstanding) and my current eyeglasses and sunglasses are RB. But the partnership with Meta is what really turns me off, and may actually persuade me to make sure my next pair are not RB.
I never understood why a well-known brand like RayBan would want to be associated with this.
They were bought by Luxotica years ago.
as literally almost all glasses brands
Yes exactly. Their question was parallel to asking why a company like gatorade ([Pokesi]) would put hfcs and barely any vitamins in their sports drinks. Its a mega corp now and only cares about profit, not image.
Gatorade never had vitamins, even in its original formulation. It was flavored water with salt to help athletes with electrolyte depletion.
Also, Gatorade is owned by Pepsi. Maybe you’re thinking of Powerade, which was crap.
Yeah, i seem to have gotten their parent corp mixed but idgaf about which soda mega corp is giving people diabetes as a sports supplement, so…
Powerade has more electrolytes and vitamins that support recovery. They are both ass but powerade is def the better options of the two. Gatorade is fr just sugar water.
I can’t see the word electrolyte without thinking “it’s what plants crave”.
And Meta probably have Luxotica a large sack of cash to make these glasses.
Most people are so stupid and just do whatever they’re told to the extent that if meta releases these glasses and tells you that they’re cool, then people will be like, wow, these glasses are cool. Rayban just wants in on it. It makes a lot of sense unfortunately.
The free app NearbyGlasses can detect their Bluetooth signal and tell you if someone is wearing them in range of your phone.
This could save you from being filmed by influencers, or creeps. Let the women in your life know.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
Ugh watch me install this then have it just be government owned spyware
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
it is öpen source
I think we have some Meta Glasses owners replying as well.
Developed by a PhD professor in the Sociology of Gender and the Applied Sciences at LMU Munich:
This is apparently their first app, as they’re a programming hobbyist. Their research is in technology’s effects on women and gender relations.
as they’re a programming hobbyist.
So they vibe-coded it. No thanks.
If you actually looked at the link that they gave you, it’s pretty obvious that the person has a lot of programming experience. I would say less than 2% of the developers I’ve ever met have an app on the app store so for a lot of them it would be their first app if they published one too.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Wow, this violates privacy! You mean this scans for nearby devices? Completely exposing nearby consumers of those devices? Totally illegal
\sbtw
There was a similar news article in Germany a few days ago. It was about a “pick-up artist/dating coach/influencer” named Erick Ronaldo secretly filming some girl at the Oktoberfest and posting it to his channel where that girl was ridiculed in the comments. (Fun fact: when the news media approached that guy and asked for a statement, he demanded $7,500 for an interview - which they, of course, didn’t pay)
he demanded $7,500 for an interview
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
heimliches Filmen ist aktuell in Deutschland nicht per se strafbar. Besonders in öffentlichen Räumen sind Betroffene kaum geschützt.
(Roughly in English)
covert filming isn’t currently illegal in Germany per se. Those filmed are rarely protected, especially in public
Filming in public not being illegal, I get, but he’s profiting off of her likeness. Ideally that would be illegal itself, but even if not, could she not sue him for a share? Obviously, putting the burden on victims is not a great remedy, especially because it’s expensive, a huge hassle, and risks the Streisand effect, but I could see a women’s rights organization orchestrating it for her and it might be possible to keep her identity secret.
Again, I don’t think that’s ideal, but it seems better than nothing and wouldn’t preclude criminal charges from going through if the government does figure out how to prosecute this
Filming by itself isn’t illegal in Germany, but publishing the footage without consent of everyone in the video is. (“Recht am eigenen Bild”) Don’t know how this applies if the perpetrator is from the USA and publishes the recording there, though.
And even if - good luck in suing someone from the US while you’re still in Germany.
You could at least get it taken down from YouTube through German privacy rights, since it was filmed in Germany.
Yeah, probably. But this doesn’t help much when the damage is already done, i.e. people have already commented bad things. And might even entice people (that might’ve downloaded it) to upload it again. Also, not sure whether this works as easy on e.g. TikTok.
Who could have seen this coming? Who?
