Dutch retailer pulls Meta glasses as hundreds of women reportedly filmed (cybernews.com)
from madeindex@lemmy.world to privacy@lemmy.ml on 03 Oct 12:41
https://lemmy.world/post/52666704

cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/52666693

Another win for privacy <3

#privacy

threaded - newest

unitedwithme@lemmy.today on 03 Oct 12:52 next collapse

Perv-vision!

hypnicjerk@piefed.social on 03 Oct 15:14 collapse

you’re not my perv visor!

unitedwithme@lemmy.today on 03 Oct 13:04 next collapse

The problem with the light is, it’s incredibly small and dim, so is very easy to miss. Plus, people aren’t aware of what to look for yet because they’re not used to being around this “perv-vision”.

I saw a guy at a sandwich shop with them and he was loud and bragging about them which was the only reason I knew he had them.

I’m honestly shocked they’re allowed in Illinois being there’s the “all party consent” law still in effect where any audio surveillance or recording needs to make all parties aware they’re being recorded. Then add in the BIPA (biometric information privacy act) where you KNOW Meta is going to use face ID or facial recognition to tag or show the owner who’s who.

US change.org/…/ban-meta-glasses-ray-ban-from-public…

UK www.change.org/p/ban-meta-ai-glasses

LodeMike@lemmy.today on 04 Oct 04:59 collapse

If camera glasses would be banned under all party consent then every last camera and microphone would be banned.

All party consent may only apply in private, too. A sandwich shop doesn’t count.

unitedwithme@lemmy.today on 04 Oct 05:56 collapse

It’s the audio recording that matters. In Illinois, you can have cameras, no problem, but no audio UNLESS you post signage up about having audio video surveillance. This way even in public you’re “notified” about audio being used.

In a sandwich shop, I might speak at a low enough volume a camera mic wouldn’t pick me up. With no one around me to hear, the expectation is whomever I’m speaking to would be private, while in public, and they’re not recording the convo either.

LodeMike@lemmy.today on 04 Oct 09:05 collapse

I’m sure news orgs don’t have to disclose that every time they interview someone in the streets.

unitedwithme@lemmy.today on 04 Oct 15:38 collapse

Well if you’re being interviewed, or passing someone being interviewed, it’d be obvious with cameras and crew there. Those cameras aren’t discreet.

LodeMike@lemmy.today on 04 Oct 19:37 collapse

It doesn’t matter in public. First amendment protects it.

irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone on 04 Oct 04:28 collapse

They need to make it a big giant bright flashing light for recording like some old video cameras had on them.