To British(UK)/US: Sign the petition "Introduce an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses" (petition.parliament.uk)
from rocksolid@lemmy.ml to privacy@lemmy.ml on 28 Jul 01:13
https://lemmy.ml/post/50630060

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/33210341-ae44-4a54-ae52-24554e662af3.png">

UK -> petition.parliament.uk/petitions/769206/

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

#privacy

threaded - newest

artyom@piefed.social on 28 Jul 01:41 next collapse

I don’t think “smart glasses” are the problem. The term is too broad. The problem is, more specifically, cameras pointed at people constantly, with those cameras being designed to upload 100% of the data to surveillance systems, owned by surveillance companies.

It’s totally possible to have “smart glasses” like GoPro that just record locally. Or ones that connect to a local AI model.

The obligatory response to this is “there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”, and they’re right, and changing that comes with a whole boatload of new problems, like recording public servants/officials.

atrielienz@lemmy.world on 28 Jul 02:02 next collapse

Yeah, I can see a use for smart glasses. Specifically in assisting the hard of hearing, those with partial blindness, maybe even people with other disabilities as well. But the upload of data and cameras recording people without their knowledge and consent is a problem. Not just a problem, but the problem.

But also our laws have a habit of not catching up to the reality of how people use tech to violate the rights of others and that really needs to be addressed. Not against consumers but against tech firms and manufacturers.

SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 28 Jul 03:10 next collapse

The tech companies literally live and die on the idea that traditional governments can’t keep up… and it’s also why the jackass tech barons think they should own and be in charge of everything instead.

Maeve@kbin.earth on 28 Jul 06:35 collapse

The governments want this. TIA never died.

SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 28 Jul 06:37 collapse

Nice, it’s been a solid decade since anyone has mentioned Total Information Awareness. Deep cut.

hanrahan@slrpnk.net on 28 Jul 04:45 collapse
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world on 28 Jul 03:52 next collapse

Similarly I have no issues with people using dashcams, but I have issues with dashcams that upload to third party companies without anyones knowledge.

porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml on 28 Jul 08:06 next collapse

The obligatory response to this is “there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”,

That is a USA-specific legal standard which doesn’t apply in much of the world. While it has it’s upsides it also has downsides and it shouldn’t be seen as gospel, or the only way to do things.

Businesskasper@feddit.org on 28 Jul 10:42 next collapse

Honestly, just get rid of the cameras and I’m fine with smart glasses.

FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works on 29 Jul 00:57 collapse

“there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”

In the US, the judicial system is shifting about that. Slowly! But it is. There is a name for this legal theory which I forgot now. The idea is, once you string together enough individual data points, they enjoy 4A protection. Even if any one by itself wouldn’t rise to 4A level. That means while you don’t have an expectation of privacy, you DO have an expectation the gov won’t use all that data to surveil you without a warrant.

Ofc, that only binds the government. It does NOT bind private co’s! Google. Meta. A million data brokers. Flock! So it only addresses part of the prob. Is it good? Yes! But we also need protection against private collectors. In meatspace, we cannot block Flocks and randos with smart glasses. Or the total data fusion that results.

pucker4676@lemmy.ml on 29 Jul 03:00 collapse

Ah, good. The government will finally start obeying the law. I’m sure Edward can come home now.

FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works on 29 Jul 21:12 collapse

This is a logical fallacy. I’m not picking on you specifically, because that way of thinking is all over social media. But it is not a useful or productive way to think about the world.

pucker4676@lemmy.ml on 29 Jul 23:48 collapse

The law is meaningless if it’s not enforced.

FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works on 30 Jul 19:13 collapse

Sure. I totally get your sense of frustration, and you’re not wrong about that per se.

But in general the law still is enforced. All these things can be true at the same time, (1) We are back-sliding in our enforcement, especially for the politically powerful, (2) There are systemic attacks on the rule of law, (3) In general, the law is still enforced, and (4) There is movement in the court system towards better privacy protections. Even at the very top, arguably corrupt levels of the courts, we see things like Carpenter v. US. And others like that. Those trickle down into a million cases at lower levels of the judicial system. It takes a long time, and the system is not a monolith. It moves slowly. But it moves.

There are like a million court cases every day where there is no political angle, and the right thing happens. The courts slap down 4A violations all the itme, like lack of warrant. And we’re seeing a big upswing in cases with a political angle, where the courts stand up against malicious prosecutions too.

So you are right, problems exist! Absolutely. But be careful, b/c frequency of reporting is not frequency of occurence! The right thing happening is not news. It happens all the time, with no outrage-pumping headlines.

My main point is, it isn’t a black and white situation. We can’t simply say, “The law isn’t being enforced, so it is meaningless”. That’s too black and white. It is being enforced, imperfectly. And it is NOT meaningless to have legal protections for privacy invasions.

We have probs, yes. A shitton of 'em. But we also have to be careful of not falling into doomerism. That leads to bad outcomes.

pucker4676@lemmy.ml on 30 Jul 20:48 collapse

You seem kind. Thank you for that.

I was simply stating the US government 3 letter agencies have been disregarding the law when it comes to our privacy for many years. I didn’t communicate the statement very well. Sorry.

I don’t have faith in the liberal system. It’s been failing us regular people since it’s inception. If there were more people like you, it might stand a chance at being slightly less exploitative… You’re not the average person running things, though.

And anyways, you can’t reform a system that has exploitation at it’s core.

A revolution will take place one day. It might not be in our lifetime, or maybe it’ll be next year, who knows.

Take care kind stranger.

FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works on 30 Jul 21:22 collapse

Yah, I agree, the three letter agencies have run roughshod.

Cheers. Hopefully we both live to see things get better, somehow.

unitedwithme@lemmy.today on 28 Jul 05:10 next collapse

[Petition for US](https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-glasses-ray-ban-from-public-and-private-use)

Petition for UK

DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml on 28 Jul 10:12 next collapse

Is there also an European Citizens’ initiative? I think the EU could also fine Meta for this.

ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 05 Aug 13:08 collapse

A dollar for every billion made.

rocksolid@lemmy.ml on 28 Jul 13:35 collapse

Didn’t know there is a US petition. post updated

als@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 28 Jul 23:50 collapse

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/13c79a36-546a-42e9-9b0a-f5329df68a8b.webp">

umbrella@lemmy.ml on 29 Jul 00:26 next collapse

yup. we never got big positive things by asking the ruling class nicely, ever.

Mrkawfee@lemmy.world on 29 Jul 10:02 collapse

But if you don’t ask nicely they call you a terrorist

ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com on 29 Jul 01:51 collapse

Something something there is already legislation in place something something we keep it under constant review

umbrella@lemmy.ml on 29 Jul 03:53 collapse

corpo non-talk intensifies