1009
DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses' (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
145 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Like, I guess I don’t understand why these damn things have a camera in the first place. At most they should be roughly equivalent to a smart watch - a display and some controls. Maybe bone-conducting headphones or something for audio. It’d be neat to have navigation prompts in glasses, for instance. Buy why a fucking camera?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Were it not for the fact that it's the fucking privacy-invading big tech companies doing it, I would admit that there are good use-cases for the camera:

    • Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you're talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I'm not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.
    • Scanning, OCR-ing and making searchable any papers you're looking at (hooking to your selfhosted Paperless-NGX).
    • Displaying augmented-reality translations of street signs (which is one of the few reasonable things Google Glass actually did).
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I've heard they can be also quite useful for blind/vision-impaired users to describe surroundings and read signs, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yep. That’s the sort of thing that interested me as a visually impaired guy (I see about 20 percent with my contacts). It’s a shame I can’t really buy and use them for that since I’d likely get physically assaulted for using them for benign purposes.

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

    Check your local laws, but you can probably buy and carry a white cane so long as you aren't trying to scam the legal benefits of it.

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

    Everyone can, there’s no legal issues with it. Same as wheelchairs. You can buy and use one if you like. Of course, people will be weirded out if you do it, but there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it.

    That said, I’ve never needed a cane even though I’ve been trained to use a ‘recognition cane’ to cross the street (I went to a school for the visually impaired, where they teach everyone how to do that).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    It's huge for this. Aiming and trying to frame the camera for a phone app sucks. Pointing your head is a lot more natural.

    The "medical device " solutions are bulky, exceedingly expensive, and lack creature comforts like Bluetooth audio from your phone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Even then I could see people not wanting picture, video, or audio recorded of them even if it is just kept locally for private use. And that's the problem of these glasses with trying to be discrete so people who would have avoided you or asked you to stop recording before having a conversation are left unaware.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    They'd be helpful when interacting with police. Heck, I could see them being useful when interacting with anyone in a hostile situation. What people will say when they don't think they're being recorded and what they will say when they know they are can be vastly different, and the people that will speak and act differently are the very ones you want to record. I've had occasions in the past where these would have been very useful, though it turned out recorded audio was sufficent.

    Unfortunately the tech is ripe for abuse and I understand the mistrust they cause. Too many crappy people, and too many crappy tech companies that will abuse the video themselves even if the person wearing them only used them with good intentions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Even though I agree with recording police, the fact that your first thought went straight to “hidden camera for the purpose of recording without consent” makes this a nonstarter to begin with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Most states it's legal to record audio without consent if you're a party to the conversation, and it's legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.

    For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I'd not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I'd have likely not beat the charges. So yeah... I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    This is similar to the type of arguments made by those wanting increased surveillance with stuff like flock camera and ID online verification expansion. Pointing to the bad things in the world it helps prevent or track down that happens.

    And pointing to the law to keep pushing what they are allowed to record and track.

    Privacy and security has been a balancing act. And even examples of bad thing that happens I'm sure you can relate is the very common attempt at emotional appeal used by them.

    Not denying your use case, but when it comes to surveillance they all seem to use the argument of safety.

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

    A person being able to record what they see and hear is different than a robot that records everything. I strongly disapprove of flock and online ID verification. Those aren't related to a person being able to make a personal record.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm sure that's the argument Meta is making for their glasses.

    People aren't any better, since people are more likely to be recording specifically for the purposes of resharing and we do live in a social media age.

    And these devices as they gain popularity would be relaying information back to the companies anyways, so make the claims of it being local or private not matter when that wouldn't be the average wearable discrete tech that would gain mainstream popularity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    As I said I'm not arguing for Meta's glasses. They're ripe for abuse and I have no doubt there are people who would use them in inappropriate ways and in non-public places where a person otherwise expects some privacy.

    While there are valid reasons for recording things both in public and private, without a doubt the ability to secretly record video will be abused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Whether its meta or not, discrete wearable video recording is not something I am in favor of. Like the recent LG spyware installing on people's Windows PC shows, many tech companies aren't in the business of being privacy respecting in the products they offer. It's usually those companies that gain market share.

    And individuals with how quick they are to live stream and share every picture and video voluntarily to social media sites doesn't much lend to responsible use either. At least those people aren't usually hiding that they are recording.

    When it comes to legal audio wiretapping those are already sufficient in places where it is legal to be used in cases like yours. So I don't much see a need to further extend hidden audio recordings to also include hidden video recordings with wearables. Cases where video is also needed seem more like very specific niche cases involving investigations, so to shift it to being an every day casual accessory I dont see as necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    They weren't talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I'd argue there's implied consent as they're public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they're working for the owner class, but they're paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I'd say that's fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    38 states believe if you're a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn't be allowed to protect yourself.

    But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won't suggest there aren't reasons that some states are like that but I'm sure glad I didn't live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago

    Legality ≠ morality. 38 states believe you shouldn't be prosecuted for the act. That is not a statement in what you should or should not do. I agree mostly with not making it illegal because, like I said, there are exceptions that make it something you should do. The law does not handle things like that well.

    This isn't to say someone shouldn't punch you in the face if you're filming them doing something they believed to be private. Are you legally allowed to? Sure. Should society allow it, in all cases all the time? Fuck no, and there should be consequences for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you’re talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I’m not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.

    I would rather the person shattered a glass fountain pen in my urethra than scanned my face because they forgot my name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Yes this is the exact thing I'm interested in. Camera is definitely not something needed here. There are some like this on the market like the MemoMind. I'm waiting for one with progressive lens support like the Even Realities G2 but with audio added.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Part of me understands having a camera for AR lookups and such, and in my line of work a hands free camera would be amazing especially if I could pull the image back up on the glasses and zoom in on serial numbers etc, but I don't trust Meta with being on my phone let alone having a live video feed from my eye line at all times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I would LOVE to have a nice pair of camera glasses. I love my dashcam, I’m so excited when something crazy happens (that doesn’t involve me) so I can save the video to show to my partner. I’d loooove that while just walking around.

    No fucking chance I want that device to have Internet access, absolutely not. I specifically got the best dashcam I could that has NO Bluetooth or WiFi capabilities, local storage only.

    I fully see the value in having a hands-free camera while I’m walking around, exploring, people-watching, etc. but anything that I don’t have the control of where the data all goes is incredibly not bueno.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I’m walking around, exploring, people-watching, etc. but anything that I don’t have the control of where the data all goes

    I think the ethical problem is that the people you’re watching don’t have any control over where that video go tbh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Nobody has any control over where dashcam videos go, or where videos we take with our phones go… but those are okay. If I put my phone on an armband or a shirt pocket and record, isn’t that basically the same thing as having camera glasses?

    I’m fine with someone recording with a camera in public, that’s all cool. But I don’t wanna be anywhere near anything connected to Facebook. I don’t want my pictures there, or my words, or anything to do with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It hits a little differently if you’ve ever been a victim of sexual harassment.

    If your put a camera anywhere on your person that surreptitiously records people without their consent, I think anyone has the right to presume you’re a pervert, and act accordingly

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    You’re not gonna believe this lul

    I just feel differently. Another poster mentioned bathrooms though and that’s a very good point. If I ever did have a camera that recorded stuff I see locally like a dashcam, I’d take it off, turn it off, and put it in my bag before I entered a private-public space like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    I guess it depends on where you are from. Data protection is taken relatively seriously where I come from (Germany), and dashcams are heavily regulated (in theory). Dashcam footage must be non-continuous and triggered by specific events, e.g., a collision. It is not meant to be saved or archived without a valid reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I personally don't want to be recorded. I dont have a choice in the matter with it not being illegal, but I'll avoid people who are obviously recording when possible.

    Can't do much about people going out of their way to be discrete, but if they are trying to be discrete those people tend to be people who are aware others don't like it but don't care what others think.

    But I don’t wanna be anywhere near anything connected to Facebook.

    Same. That's pretty much why. It doesn't matter if it isn't a Facebook device. People might be recording to upload to facebook related socials or end up reposting on facebook media socials. Its an uploading sharing social media society we live in.

    I'm not going to go out of my way to stop someone recording. That just makes you stand out more, and end up content. So even if something is legal and people aren't doing anything it doesn't mean they are willingly consenting. They've accepted that's how it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent