800
Women in Brussels 'filmed without their knowledge' by men wearing Meta smart glasses (www.brusselstimes.com)
submitted 2 months ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
323 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    So to be clear, you are okay with being surveilled by the government?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?

    FFS at least try to argue in good faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent