Women in Brussels 'filmed without their knowledge' by men wearing Meta smart glasses
“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.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/2166072/women-unknowingly-filmed-in-brussels-with-meta-smart-glasses-raise-concernsOpen linkView original on piefed.social800
Comments326
Who would’ve known this would happen? Everyone. Meta knew people would use it for the bad and they still decided to go on with it because money.
Hope there will be a way to prevent being recorded, like some tech that disables it or something.
There are lights that work on some cameras. I'm not sure which (infrared, I think prolly others). Search the web. They exist. But how are you gonna have that at all times everywhere? Easier to set the Meta HQ on fire. And that's prolly not easy.
Someone made a hoodie with IR LED lights all around the face. I bet one could also build it into a necklace or something, but you'd need some sort of battery in your pocket to power them.
The real problem with these is that they are only really effective at night. In daylight, the blinding effect of the LEDs is minimized.
Or look in real life :-)
They are small and you can see them only from some specific angle. And not quite bright.
I think they are referring to camera-blinding IR lights
The word you're looking for is "hammer".
Baseball bats have better range.
Yeah, but nothing delivers the message better than calming grabbing the glasses, put them on the table in front of the glasshole, smash them with the hammer in a single confident blow and then placing the remnants back on their face. No words spoken, just a powerfull message delivered.
there are open source android apps that tell you when a meta rayban is nearby (using the phone's ability to scan nearby bluetooth devices) which isn't really good enough but it's something i guess
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
if you're a woman and the creep is a man, there's always the option of pepper spray i guess, though then you will have to justify yourself somehow. i don't think predominantly male chud cops will accept the reasoning of "i feel unsafe" from women, even if it's true and valid.
as for impractical ideas, you can always carry around a 5W laser pointer and then try and fry the camera. of course does not work irl.
It's a good thing they brought in "experts" to point this out.
I've always thought an EMP bomb would do some good. Snap worker bees out of their unhealthy relationship with working, disable vehicles, make people fulfil their needs physically
I figured that would kill pacemakers, but it might not. it’ll definitely kill electric wheelchairs and insulin fridges though.
kill everyone with a pacemaker, disable emergency systems, create traffic chaos
Damn, poor pacemaker dudes
Satan laughing spreads his wiiiiinngggssss
Years ago I tried calling out the normalization of anybody recording anybody in public without their knowledge or consent, and nobody cared because I was a man so they thought I didn't deserve privacy. Now the headlines frame it as a women's issue and suddenly everyone cares.
It's not a gendered thing. It's a privacy issue. People didn't care when I raised concerns about it, and I'm not surprised that it's biting people on the ass.
I still think it's wrong, I just don't find it surprising given people's reactions whenever I raised concerns about it.
Also, ray-ban was stupid for allowing this because obviously nobody is going to buy their shit anymore. They had a distinctive design that now nobody is going to trust...
I can tell you the vast majority of people don't care AND Raybans gets their name in the media more often so it's marketing for them.
That's putting a lot of weight in the "all publicity is good publicity" assumption
When nobody gives a fuck, it unfortunately holds true.
They've made crap sunglasses for a while now. I went to another company for my Aviators.
I hate to tell you, but whatever the other company you went to is, it's almost certainly Luxottica, the same people who make Ray-Ban now.
I never said I liked raybans, but for a while over a decade ago they were all the rage with the hipster/indie crowd. People liked them, and their style was distinctive. So distinctive that even a cheap knockoff were called "raybans" for the shape of the frame and lenses.
Now no one in their right mind besides annoying tech bros are going to wear raybans, because anyone who sees them is going to assume they have cameras with facial recognition linked to meta's servers.
People will always find ways to abuse technology.
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)
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
(Roughly in English)
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.
I think that could fall under "Recht am eigenen Bild" (right to your own picture). It gives you the right to decide how images of you are used. If he profits off of photos/videos of her, she should have the right to sue him. It might also be illegal to publish the videos under GDPR law, especially in combination with more personal information like first name or city.
However, big festivals like the Oktoberfest often have a disclaimer that you agree to being filmed and your picture being published due to TV, press etc. being there. I don't know how that would work.
I believe (not a lawyer or expert in that field) that this does not cover covert and targeted filming.
I'd argue it's there to allow TV to make background shots and perform interviews without trouble.
That's pretty handy. Seems like that means you should therefore have the right for it not to be non-consensually sucked into the Meta AI training corpus (and you know it is) or sold to face recognition companies etc.
Just some evidence away from a massive class action lawsuit against Meta. Yes please, spank 'em hard.
I would love that. I'm not sure if that works, since afaik the law only regulates the publication of your picture and profiting off of someone's photo. In cases of AI training you usually publish it yourself and for example Facebook and Reddit already make you agree to using your photo however they want.
I wonder if AI companies could be sued for using pictures from a private website for training.
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
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.
Glassholes.
I'm being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go
Yes but they have the right
In Europe, they often don't. Enforcement is difficult though.
Yeah, unwritten laws are a silly idea.
Thank goodness they wrote in down then.
https://gdpr-info.eu/
If the company puts up a sign notifying that there are cameras on the premises then under Article 6.1(f) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ it is allowed due to "legitimate interest" in deterring crime, securing premises, promoting general safety. This could be argued in a court that it fails the balancing test and that they could and should use more narrow means of collection but the way the courts have ruled I don't think you'd win that case. Although to be fair the EU doesn't use common law or case law for decisions so it could be up to the particular judge.
Going back to the article though, if a person with the glasses is filming for "purely personal or household activity," the entire GDPR is exempt under Article 2(2)(c) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/
GDPR regulates the data and the processing, not the act of filming or the expectation of privacy for an exempt usage. If they decide to sell this on a creeper site that is different but I wouldn't look to GDPR to be the primary legal framework for this being explicitly illegal. The actions under original article would more directly be a violation of multiple other national laws like Germany's "KunstURHG" and France's "Droit à l'image"
Oh. So somebody in power is going to do something about it. I'm glad.
Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles
Didnt that already get done to demonstrate the complete lack of privacy caused by this?
Checking....
Yeah this was what I was thinking of: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/rsac-meta-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-hacked-live-demo-2026/
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
Developed by a PhD professor in the Sociology of Gender and the Applied Sciences at LMU Munich:
https://yves.jeanrenaud.net/
This is apparently their first app, as they're a programming hobbyist. Their research is in technology's effects on women and gender relations.
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.
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
it is öpen source
I think we have some Meta Glasses owners replying as well.
Wow, this violates privacy! You mean this scans for nearby devices? Completely exposing nearby consumers of those devices? Totally illegal
\sbtwI 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.
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
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.
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!?
Ok. How is this different from cameras on phones, or cameras hidden in shirt button?
It's not, and the same rules apply to those.
It is like a camera hidden in a shirt button and that's exactly the problem.
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 :)
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.
I trust individuals with a camera or two far more than I trust the government with cameras everywhere.
Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.
Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.
They're not worse, but having yet another thing invading our privacy in public IS worse. No sense in giving up even more ground.
Stop and think about what you just said for a second. Privacy…..in public. You have no privacy in public, those are opposites.
There's degrees of privacy. People don't deserve to be recorded 24/7 just because they happen to be outside.
You might skip any trips to urban UK.
US cities are doing it too, but I just avoid urban areas as much as possible regardless.
They don’t “deserve” to, but it is not illegal if they are. If you’re in a public space you shouldn’t expect privacy…..because you’re in a public place. That’s pretty obvious.
Something being legal doesn't make it morally correct and the rest of us should oppose this shit in every way we can, not simply expect it.
Oppose what, that you can be filmed or photographed without explicit consent when you’re in public?
So if I go to the Eiffel Tower, I have to go and ask the hundreds of other people there if they consent to me taking their photo simply because they’re in my photo? Or if I see a criminal breaking into a house, I have to ask them if I can take their photo/video if I want to report them and hand over my photos/video to the police?
Found the creep.
For simply stating the obvious?
In most of the world the law is pretty straight forward here - no expectation of privacy in public. Knowing this isn’t “creepy”. Not knowing this is hilarious.
Difference being: we're kind of powerless against government surveillance high up on a fence, but we can sanction the class traitor glassholes with an accidental elbow to the glasses and a clumsy step on them.
Seems like you’re giving a pass to government and corpos, while assaulting fellow citizens.
I intend on getting whatever glasses eventually come out with an AR layer involved, camera or not. Doesn’t mean I’ll be constantly recording. In fact I’d likely almost never record anything.
And apparently that means I deserve an elbow to the face.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, I am not giving a pass to government and corpos. But people recording others in public are henchmen of the very same fascist governments and yes, you deserve an elbow to the face if you record ANYONE (in more detail than within a large group of pedestrians) in public EVER without their explicit consent. Because you are - at least in civilized countries - violating privacy laws with the expectation that no one will sue you for it.
You’ve already stated that simply wearing them is assaultable. You have no way of knowing I’m recording, so you’ve just made the assumption that I am.
You’ll find that in almost every civilised country recording in public is 100% allowed. It’s what you do with the footage that has restrictions and laws around it.
Privacy in public is not a thing. They’re literally antonyms.
is being done != is being allowed. don't film people without explicit consent, or you deserve whatever happens to you as a consequence.
Sorry but the law is the law, and in public places you can and will be filmed and they don’t need your explicit consent. Which countries do you think it is illegal to film people in public places without explicit consent?
If you don’t like it, don’t go out in public. Also don’t pretend like anyone here is going to do anything to anyone wearing them lol. Everyone is a hero behind their keyboard. There would be no consequences.
For AR you need to be recording. If you are recording, it is being sent to Facebook servers. You accepted Facebook's terms and conditions, not me.
If you don't want to be punched, you should advocate for laws that make the glasshole glasses ugly through non-avoidable methods of detecting if the glasses are recording.
For example by requiring every glass hole glass to have a physical cover that physically covers the view of the camera, and it should be a bright color to easily see if it is covering the camera or not. The contour of the camera should be painted with an equally bright color, contrasting highly with the cover. So you can easily see if the cover is covering it completely.
A led that turns on when recording is not enough, it's very easy to remove a led from a device.
If you want to not use glass hole glasses for evil, you should want it to be mandatory for other people to see if you're using it for evil or not.
AR could never work by sending a recording to an external server. At least not with available technology. And in fact, you wouldn’t necessarily need to even have image data, lidar would suffice. All handled on device.
Calculating the AR locally doesn't mean that you won't be sending the recording to Facebook.
They don't collect data because it is necessary for the technology they use. They collect data because they sell it.
What are you even talking about? How is being filmed not worse than not being filmed, privacy-wise?
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.
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 reality where Mark Zuckerberg's dreams come true.
If only people had said "no thanks, I'm good" when Fakebook rolled out. Of course something else equally as shitty would have probably taken its place.
If only people would just stop fucking using it. It's still a choice to use it.
I quit facebook about 15 years ago. I still have people trying to share facebook links with me or suggesting I make a fake account for whatever bullshit reason they think I need one. Even reasonable and well-educated people in my life don't seem to understand the purpose of not having facebook is not having fucking facebook.
People are stupid but a person is smart.
One day all this "tech" bullshit will be gone and people will remember what it was like to have a certain level of privacy again.
Hindsight is 20/20 but only few, if any, expected how big of a giant piece of shit Facebook will become and especially its founder. Most people thought it is just another fad, and expected it will go the way of most other social media sites at the time such as Friendster, Bebo and MySpace.
Zuck was always a giant piece of shit. On discussing the information its first users' willingness to give personal details to The Face Book back at (?) Harvard (?) he said: "... They just send it to me. They trust me. The dumb fucks."
He was mask-off from the beginning. We're (society, not addressing anyone individually) just really blind to threats when distracted by shiny, noisy crap.
You forget this is, by definition, before Facebook. It’s also before any social media became popular. People had never heard the name Zuckerberg, let alone heard what he was like. And people had not had to deal with this type of predatory company. Google was still “don’t be devil”, and Microsoft was a completely different type of predator - one asking for money, not giving things for free.
As others have said: hindsight is easy, but this was a very different time.
Most people would not have known about what Zuck in the earlier years of Facebook. Heck, even to this day, either most people still don't know or don't care. Facebook is still extremely popular in developing countries because the site is free regardless of whether or not you have a mobile internet data. But they don't realise they are being manipulated by the social media to give them free information and to vote a certain way in elections that is against their own interest.
It's kind of like survivorship bias: The ones who rise to the very top must be the most ruthless and biggest pieces of shit. It's like taking 20 trials to rise to the top, and to succeed each trial fucking others over and only concerning yourself with your advancement is beneficial. It only leaves the worst.
It certainly paves the way for kakistocracy
But you know, back then it was "supposed" to about making connections with friends and family. Although the true original were just to meet college aged chicks
it was to rate college aged chicks.
“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?
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.
Thats already illegal we don't need more laws for that, just enforcement.
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.
No. It's iterating on the common traits of known images compressed plus lots of randomization.
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.
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.
Do you honestly think people who make AI CP and want to see CP are training models on a ton of things to get them close, and then figuring out how to nudge it all just a bit further? Or do the people already in the CSAM world with access to CSAM that want to make CP just use the CSAM to train the model? I expect the second. Meaning there's victims.
Plus, it's disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn't just in general. It's weird that you're defending it like it's diet coke or something.
"It's disgusting" is not quite the right argument for making something illegal.
And that "you're defending" presupposition should honestly be your last claim in any group of people before being shown the door.
Quoting myself.
I "honestly think" each case is unique. Just like with everything else.
CP is harmful due to normalizing the thing, useful due to redirecting some of the energy people with that pathology have away from, you know, real children.
Also true for spy cameras. And they don't have the disadvantage of needing to be attached to a person to work.
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 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!
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.
See for example: https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/themes/camera-surveillance/camera-surveillance-at-organisations/rules-for-camera-surveillance-for-organisations
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.
How about dash cams?
I am not an expert. Dashcam legality differs across EU countries, but generally you are not allowed to share dashcam video.
https://www.ddpai.com/blog/dash-cam-legality-in-eu/
Those aren't looking up her skirt, down her shirt, at your crotch or seeing your plumber's crack, just for that purpose.
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.
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.
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 ...
And private smart phones.
Ban them.
Ray Ban them.
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No, consent is saying yes or no, not wether or not I see a small LED (which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual)
You don't need to be too savy to put a little piece of black tape over it
It is not that simple. It has a sensor to check if the led is covered.
Just tape over that sensor too
It's tape all the way down, isn't it?
it's not that siml- gets taped
Perhaps not a piece of black tape, sure--but it's not like there aren't options out there. A quick Bing provided plenty of links to research ways to circumvent the LED.
Respect for not using Google for search.
Did you try Ecosia?
That's actually my go-to! Started using Ecosia after reading about it here 🙂
As for my comment--I figured Bing would make a better verb than Google (plus I'm so over Google at this point)
Tell that to some states in the US where there's a thing called "one-party consent", i.e. if one party knows about the recording (which the wearer obviously would), it's legal.
That's for reccrding audio, iirc. Much more defensible and protects the little guy more. Eg, recording a meeting with an asshole boss
It's the same in Sweden, you are allowed to record any conversation you yourself is taking part in. I think it's a fair law. Video though, not so much.
That's for audio, not video, but it does bring up a point - do these glasses record audio? Because that could be a legal defense in a two party consent state. It would essentially make it illegal in two party states. It also depends on whether audio in public is protected at all, the way video is.
Which US state is Brussels in? Does EU law apply in that state?
There are multiple: IL, WI
Unlikely
No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological "advances", and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone's attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don't because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.
There is generally no such consent required in public in most countries
Not when one is a part of a crowd, but when the focus is directly on someone, consent should be asked.
Should and needs to be are different things
You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?
It's the whole entire point of these glasses so this surely cannot be a surprise.
I'm just waiting for bans on these glasses now, because that is inevitably where this is headed as the public at large simply cannot be trusted to handle this kind of technology responsibly.
And the harder these glasses become to spot, the broader the bans will be, undoubtedly right up the point where they'll just straight up refuse anybody with any kind of thick framed glasses.
Given that cameras are readily available to the public, these glasses will likely only be banned in specific controlled locations.
I mean I can literally just put my phone in a shirt pocket with camera rolling.
Well, fucking don't.
I actually have done this, but nothing nefarious. Work-related in a non-public environment. Video calling a coworker for assistance and needed to be able to use my hands.
Are mobile phones banned in public? Cameras?
In my world there is a non-trivial difference between pointing your phone in someone's general direction and just having inconspicuous looking glasses film everything implicitly.
There shouldn’t really be. Phones can easily record people without their knowledge even as you walk right past them.
People could do lots of things, but it really isn't as trivial to secretly get eye level footage of what you're looking at with a smartphone, as you're making it out to be.
Things like phones peeking out of breastpockets with their camera stick out like a sore thumb and aren't nearly as easily directed at whatever you intend to record without people realizing you're recording something.
And the open prescence of a phone always has some implication of a possibility of recording. Glasses do (or rather did) not.
Also, this specific device is a Meta product. And those, by definition, deserve all the hate they can get on the count of them being a gigantic privacy problem due to the nature of the business Meta is ultimately in.
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they're flagged for secretly recording, convictions, ... A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
That's actually a very good point. Glasses such as these could indeed be used preventively as shitty behavior dash cams.
We need videos on tiktok and insta of hot women making brutal commentary of men in public, filmed on Meta glasses.
It's the only way.
Ray-Ban Meta glasses detection app. : https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
AI's against AI's. Apps against apps. I want to get off this planet at the next stop.
Idk. Bans on recording someone in public without their consent, feel like a really difficult thing to properly enforce -- with or without the glasses. The number of people doing it with Smartphones already, in most jurisdictions at least, would make such a law's wide-spread enforcement seem implausible. And I mean, you're in a public area, so you sorta need to expect less privacy.... because it's in public?
Most places have laws on this. Often, it is legal to film/take photos, but not to focus on individuals.
Also makes a difference if you publish those pictures or videos.
Yeah, I'm not as fussed over having laws on books, but on whether those laws are realistically enforceable. Like I recall reading at some point that lots of jurisdictions in the states define things like Orgies as a group of three or more people in a private dwelling without shoes on, based on ancient prudish attempts to describe what goes on. That's a law that's "on the books", but practically unenforceable.
Same sort of thought pattern, to me, generally applies to the recording of people in public. It's practically implausible that govt can enforce it uniformly, and it's on the books just so they can 'throw another book' at a perp who's been arrested for far greater offenses. There are also potential issues with 'two party consent' type recording setups, where one party is wanting to document events for legitimate reasons (recording an interaction with police, to CYA).
Idk. People taking pictures / recording public 'things', doesn't seem like a practical area for privacy legislation to come in overly heavy handed on.
Ya at least you can tell if someone's pointing a phone at you and recording you. Can't do that so easily when its glasses though. I knew these things were gonna be trouble from the start.
Dumb ficks buying these and helping the ultra wealthy expand their surveillance network. Jfc
It's pretty easy to just put a phone in a shirt pocket with the camera rolling as a sort of poor man's bodycam.
One of the issues is that there are legitimate uses for the tech. Like there was a post recently of a girl with hearing disabilities, ecstatic that she'd gotten glasses that provide real-time subtitles to people she talks to. A business / space with a "No Smart Glasses" policy, could essentially be denying people with disabilities access, which could land them in hot water just the same as allowing unfettered smart glass recordings.
Having them become more ubiquitous will also likely have severe impact on regular day to day interactions, even outside of the pervo-sphere. Talking with friends, or even interactions with other parties, can become a lot more complicated when people can record every word, can take those exchanges out of context, and use them against you in things like court proceedings. Eg. friends will often embellish comments/positions a bit for dramatic effect / story-telling purposes, with an understanding that it's not got to be perfectly accurate / you're going to be held accountable for every phrase. So you're right, that the more 'obvious' recording setup of phones limits this risk a bit... but not for long.
Not all smart glasses have cameras. A camera is not needed for real time subtitles.
It was an example of use cases for wearable tech and people with disabilities. Cameras aren't 'technically' required for the other example I noted related to eavesdropping. There are plausible reasons why people with disabilities would need glasses with cameras, and 'recording' people extends beyond just camera-based recordings. The issue is more with ubiquitous, covert, wearable smart-tech.
I think you can ban using such recordings in social media posts and such. The line your have to watch for is news reporters vs social media influencers. But it would at least enable prosecution of the dumb ones who don't even claim to be news reporters...
Yeah, I'd stopped short of noting that it'd prolly be more realistic to enforce regulations on wide-spread sharing / social media hosting of such content. Like in some ways, recording someone in public for whatever reason seems reasonable -- recording interactions with police, for example, being an area that makes a good deal of sense -- but posting those recordings, especially with the implied 'hope' that they go viral / generate notoriety and/or monetized returns, is pretty dicey.
Yeah, it's hard to make a law that stops this, but doesn't get used against actual journalists. And the way the news media is trending more toward being social media influencer isn't helping. Maybe entitling the person to compensation based on what the influencer got might be possible. That would keep at least free journalists out of the picture. And the paid journalists can afford to pay people if something goes viral, or to take the time to get a waiver or something. Or maybe a combination involving secret recordings, since most of the regular news media is pretty obvious.
looks like governments are going to need more specific rules for smaller regions within cities. that would be a start, but ironically, it would probably drive more surveillance in public spaces.
Look, if someone is wearing these and not announcing it, i'm going to punch them. When people get their shit lit up over this, people will get the message.
We need to nationalize two-party consent for this
Doesn't sound like the other person would consent, but if I were on your jury I'd say you were clearly defending yourself.
I’m sorry but no one believes people when they say things like this, because it’s just not true. Pretending to be a tough guy on the internet is easy, but you’re not going to choose to go to jail because you saw a person with glasses on.
It's like those arguments over whether or not it's okay to punch Nazis. The people who were arguing about it were never going to punch any Nazis in the first place.
Who could have seen this coming? Who?
The worst thing about vulture capital targeting young manipulable tech bros for their get rich schemes is that has created a self perpetuating mono culture of spoiled rich grifters with stunted emotional maturity that never progressed beyond teenage boy. The have been allowed to dominate everything and are shaping the rage baited, meme ridden, dumbarse, ignorant dystopia. Lets just pull the plug on them and stop giving them money. Then they will all fuck off back to their mum's basement to play video games and jerk off to their ai.
I am so lucky I have been to french quarter celebrations before smartphones. Some things are meant to be experienced and not documented.
I had maybe a similar experience with flamenco.
I honestly don't understand why these glasses have become so mainstream
as intended.
Everything is surveillance nowadays. No one should be surprised by this. They should be aware that it is happening because this is normal for the current fucked-up world that we inhabit.
Is it any wonder why the youth of today are displaying various forms of mental illness, not knowing a single moment of privacy in their entire lives?
I'm glad I grew up before social media and everyone having cameras everywhere. This shit is not good for mental health.
You dont see women being this creepy with new technology why cant men resist too?
Most of the women I've actually talked to about it are either asexual or have practically no sex drive so take this with a grain of salt, but I think it mostly comes down to men being more "visual" and a lot of this new technology facilitates that. The women I've talked to all prefer porny literature which the only technology I can think of that helps with that would be LLMs.
As for why men can't resist being creepy with it, I think the majority can. Those who can't have shitty impulse control and being horny overrides their better sense. Not that that's an excuse.
Are you saying you think it's never happened?
I don't think that's what they're saying, just that men use it a lot more to be creepy. Have you seen women making videos with meta glasses? Or girls in school using deepfake tech to blackmail their classmates? Probably not.
Yeah I have never seen a WOMAN making creepy porn deepfakes of a man, have you?
No, but to be fair I’ve also never seen a man make a creepy porn deepfake of a woman.
I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing. Women aren't using it to be creepy like men are. I haven't seen or heard of a woman doing that to a man.
Oh it has! But stats dont lie, men are doing it WAY more
It almost entirely comes down to porn preferences. Women tend to prefer pornographic stories while men tend to prefer pornographic images and videos. There's a reason "romance" novels are one of the absolute largest genres for books and that their demographic skews heavily towards women. I would not at all be surprised to find a certain number of women using LLMs to generate erotic stories possibly featuring acquaintances or celebrities in them. Same impulse, different medium.
Sie haben mich ins Gesicht gefilmt!
It'll only be a matter of time before some gross troglodyte makes an app for the glasses that will use AI to simulate what everyone would look like naked.
You know that will happen.
I hope the AI lies and makes me look hot.
I assume it already has. Wasn't this in the news already?
ban them
Just punch people wearing Ray-Bans on sight. Really bend those frames.
They are so many fuckers around, because they can get away with it.
When I was younger, it was more "fuck around, find out".
There are too much " find out" missing in our current days...
... and water is wet?
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...
Absolutely disgusting.
I am not a fan of this technology, but as far as I am aware there is not expectation of privacy when in public.
I am filmed constantly without my knowledge when in public in the UK.
According to google there are restrictions in the EU about publishing videos of people in public where you make them the focus of the video.
Germany is not "the EU", even if they think they are.
But they are in the EU.
"in the EU, journalism is oppressed and genocides can't be recognised without special consideration of which special people are doing the genocide" would be a useful sentence by your logic.
Psssst: Brussels is the capital of Belgium, you know that little speck that isn’t Germany.
I'm aware. I've been.
Belgium has the right of panorama, an essential right for journalism.
Um... Ok thanks for sharing. Lol
There is a difference between surveillance by a democratically elected government and some random dude though.
I.e. in Germany homeowners are only allowed to film their own property. The cameras field of view may not reach into public space.
Also while photography in public spaces is generally allowed, people may demand the deletion of photos showing their face.
Surveillance by a government used to mean they had a random police officer follow you because it was worth the time. Now it's on mass surveillence which is automated and fed into faulty AI systems flagging. A random dude with a camera doesn't compare.
So to be clear, you are okay with being surveilled by the government?
So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
Being against public surveillance doesn’t mean I want to abolish ALL forms of law enforcement/ crime prevention.
My concern (living the UK, a country with a disproportionate number of cctv) is that a society with extensive surveillance infrastructure creates the capability for abuse tomorrow. Once cameras, facial recognition systems, vehicle tracking, and data retention systems exist, future governments inherit those powers regardless of their good intent (or not as the case may be).
It’s already happening here. These systems are being used for “behaviour analysis” and tracking of lawful activities like protests and political activity. They his kind of mission creep is a slippery slope.
There is also the question of effectiveness. The UK has one of the highest densities of CCTV cameras in the democratic world, yet evidence on their impact varies significantly. There is little statistical reduction in inner city crime as a result beyond drug crime (20%), which in my opinion could be handled in a much more positive way.
I can’t speak for other countries.
So yeah, I am anti government surveillance.
Oh, so a short sentence can imply a more nuanced opinion on a subject? /s
Maybe keep that in mind next time before jumping to conclusions.
On the subject: If you want to enforce laws you have to have a way of knowing about violations. This happens via surveillance. Having CCTV is obviously surveillance but so is to show a driver's license. Or compliance documentation. So the question is not whether or not you want government surveillance or not but how much.
Ah yes, because there is no space between a surveillance state and "disbanding all forms of law enforcement"
You should take your own advice
I didn't think I'd need an /s for this comment but here we go:
It's cultural I guess. In France you have an expectation of privacy in public. Same for Belgium I guess.
I don’t think this is correct.
Public photography is generally acceptable in law in France until you publish the images. You risk civil or data protection claims if you publish identifiable images without a lawful basis or consent.
I think there's a difference between a world where someone could be recording you at any time and one where corporations are recording you 100% of the time, using masses of willing and paying citizens, in order to exploit you.
Does anyone have a Cyberpunk glitch-face counter we can start wearing to avoid facial recording?
I said it joking once but we'll get there at this rate: we need to develop a portable EMP emitter. Carry your devices in a faraday bag and whenever you see someone with suspicious glasses, just shot the EMP and fuck the glasshole and their privacy nightmarish glasses.
Just so people know, Belgium has one-party consent laws regarding the recording of conversations. I'm Belgian, see Art. 314bis in our penal code.
Who could have predicted this?
Some are developing an app that alerts you if someone nearby has connected to a network with smart glasses
People keep bringing up that companies do it but at least companies want to exploit everyone equally in profitable ways. Companies aren't human beings.
It's a lot different compared to being preyed upon by another person who might want to harm you emotionally or physically.
Time is a circle.
Part of me wants to go "well you're on a public venue, what the hell did you expect?"
But anyone wearing Zuck Glasses should be shot at from the orbit from the EU Anti-Douchebaggotry Satellite, or something. That's a special exception to public photography laws that I approve of!
What a mess!
I thought that was the whole point of them.
The grandson of the owner of the company I work for, well, I had seen him use Chinese smart glasses, just wearing him, and he asked "how did you know".
The phrasing of the headline is terrible. There is nothing special about bruxelles when it comes to invasions of privacy.
This has the character of Muslim left standing on train station, for they were late for the train. Extra information that is not relevant for the case is oft distraction and at times discrimination.
Also being filmed as a passerby in a public space is usually not something you can protect yourself from. Only when you, in particular, are being filmed stuff gets gross. I am very well aware that this is what happened. But you should use specific language in headlines to paint an accurate image of reality.
Belgian law is a lot more strict than all the comments saying "cAnT dO mUcH iN pUbLiC". In fact, you can, and we did. You're not allowed to film people in public if they are the subject/focus. It's clear cut.
That's what I said in part.
I suppose women aren't allowed to buy these?
Read the article: You do not need to ask consent from everyone in a city square for personal, non-processing use of recordings, but if you intend to share, publish, or process the footage (especially if it includes identifiable individuals), you must obtain consent under EU laws. Especially covert or non-transparent recording is illegal under GDPR.
You have no expectation of privacy in public places. In fact, if you’re in a public place you should assume you’re being recorded.
This tech has privacy concerns for sure, but this isn’t it.
In Belgium people do have an expectation of privacy in public, what they did is straight up illegal under Belgian law. If they want to film or photograph a person (not as an accidental passerby, but as the subject as was the case here), then they need to get consent from that person. If they want to share that footage online, then they need consent for that as well.
Doesn’t seem that straight forward from the article. It says you “generally” need consent, and that was said in regard to “filming and publishing”. What about just filming? The “generally” makes me think that this isn’t breaking any laws unless they publish it without consent.
The generally refers to the exceptions where no consent is needed. Had the ladies been committing a crime, then no consent was needed to start filming. Had they been filming some landmark and the ladies walked through the frame, again no consent needed from them. But generally speaking, consent is required before you may start filming a stranger.
I disagree. If you have thousands of these and some program live cross-matching and correlating everything about everyone, it is a different problem from "being seen in public" or even traditional street cameras. Before, they could investigate a limited number of people, so they had to focus on suspects and a case. Now they just mass trawl everyone's lives simultaneously.
Who is “they” here?
The fact is that if you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy………because you’re in public.
Depends. You have image rights. Those may not be relevant to people taking pictures...but they are relevant to databases collecting info on you.
You don’t own “image rights” of yourself.
Depends on the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights in shithole countries you don't.
In the US that won't pass muster, laws aren't the same everywhere.
Looking at US laws it appears you’re wrong. Unless you’re in a bathroom or somewhere where privacy is expected, recording in public places without permission is completely legal.
My intent was to say that it wouldn't break US law, "possibly breaching EU law.” wouldn't work in the is
That's why I specifically stated law isn't the same everywhere. the point being that OP is saying it's fine because it's in public, but that's US law, not all public recording is legal the world over.
But you said it won’t pass muster in the US? I’m saying it does. Most of Europe also allows recording in public. Which countries don’t?
And everyone else, but the rest of us don't matter, I guess?
What are you even trying to say?
No one has an expectation of privacy when they’re out in public. It’s right there in the name - public. The opposite of private.
I know this is in the EU and I'm in the US but unfortunately to keep people honest you need to be able to record them in public. It's a double edged sword yeah people will do perverted thing but there is no perfect solution.
Why do you need to be able to record people secretly? How does secretly recording a person keep them honest?
Think about it this way - if someone pulled out a knife and started stabbing people in public, should people be able to record it without asking the stabber for permission or not?
In public you have no expectation of privacy….. because you’re in public. Public and private are quite literally the opposite of each other.
You can do this with a clearly visible camera.
You know, I think Goat and his ilk should be allowed to have their secret camera glasses, but only if they're required by law to look like this.
A lot of public camera share up on a pole or building and most people do t know it's there. Also how do you decide a camera is visible enough.
This is like asking how we decide that your cock isn't visible through your pants. Learn to be modest, I don't know.
So your advocating for police to inspect everyone's shorts to make sure you can't see through it enough.
I'm asking you to keep your cock in your pants.
It is so fucked that in modern life I have to waste my time with conservatives trying to endlessly relitigate exactly what about being a pedophile is bad, and with tech fetishists exactly why being an asshole in public is wrong.
Spaceballs, if you're standing somewhere over the grand canyon with your phone out, obviously filming a family of three that does not want to be filmed, what the fuck are you doing? Do you find joy in being an unlikeable loser? Do you often think you just aren't lonely enough?
I don't know what it is you want me to say to you. In my ideal world, Facebook wouldn't be allowed to make this product in the first place.
We are absolutely free from prejudices, aren't we?
And clichés?
Say, isn't it a woman there in the picture, wearing these glasses? Oh, surely it is just because we always need a women for the title picture, don't we? Still no cliches, I am sure.
Sincerely, if you can’t see that the trends of behaviours like this in men outpace women significantly, you have a heavily skewed view of the realities here.
There are other phenomena too that uniquely affect men, such as violence towards a spouse when the man’s team loses a sports game.
There is no equivalent for women at that scale. We as men have to own these realities.
I've never understood why so many people are so goddamn obsessed with sports teams*. Even highly educated otherwise bright people. I enjoy playing soccer, or many other sports, but I don't care in the slightest which team wins or loses in these big competitions. Though, as a former LoL player I watched tournaments too and had a preference for underdogs, and competed myself in a CS 1.6 clan, but at the end of the day sportsmanship and witnessing satisfying gameplay is what mattered the most, regardless of which team.
*The folly of pride
Even for computer games, I hear stories of men smashing things up when they lose a game or have a certain interaction with another player. There’s an impotent rage lying in wait in many of us, and no man wants to confront their own sense of impotence.
Those probably destroy things in rage at more occasions than just games.
Why wouldn't I? It's a whole different question.
No, the guys who are beating up their wives have to own it. It's got fuck all to do with me as a non wife beater.
And therein lies your problem. You’ve taken something which seriously affects women at large, and reduced it down to something about yourself.
Empathy can be learned (it’s in us already, just needs unimpeded space). It’s a higher-order form of intelligence that helps us understand the connections between things that are not mechanical, but rather living: each other.
Living on your high horse is your problem, you need to get off it and get your feet back on the ground. Don't lecture people when they disagree with you.
Violence and mistreatment of women is of course a huge problem, which is entirely the responsibility of the guys who are perpetrating it. There is nothing to "own" for the rest of us. Your empathy is worthless.
You know that leading with benign parts doesn't successfully hide the contradictions and unhinged parts later, right?
Says you, an obvious idiot
Pretty sure that's a man in the image.
Finally someone who can see ;-)