103
Crossbenchers push for an import ban on 'pervert' smart glasses (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In recent weeks the devices, dubbed "pervert glasses" by some critics for their capacity to film in secret, have inspired two Australian petitions calling for restrictions on their sale and import which attracted tens of thousands of signatures.

Now the Greens, with support of independents, plan to launch a bill when parliament next sits to halt the import of such glasses as well as other wearable recording devices for at least 12 months, until tougher privacy protections are passed into law.

"If we end up having millions of these devices in the country, there'll be no place that's free for your privacy," Greens senator David Shoebridge said.

"Right now it's glasses, but in a month's time it's almost certainly going to be earbuds, maybe it'll be a lapel pin, maybe it'll just be your T-shirt, I don't know".

He said parliament had a narrow window of time to block their large scale importation before such devices "wash through society".

"Maybe we should think ahead for once," Senator Shoebridge said.

Archive.org URL

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

People drastically under-estimate how often they are observed by camera already.

If you're in public in a place with 50 people within 100m of you, you are very likely already under the gaze of more than one camera. If you are in a place open to the public, you are likely already under the case of more than one camera. If you are on a main road, you are likely being watched. I'm even starting to see cameras watching cycle paths.

We aren't at USA/England/China levels of surveillance, yet - but it's pretty ubiquitous. About the only place that's free for your privacy now is your home, maybe your friends'/family homes and places where nobody else is around. Want privacy? Head out of town. Don't take your phone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    So there’s a difference between the security cameras around, which we have little agency over and despite our lack of trust, do have a rationale to exist, and someone privately filming a person against their will, without the agency to object or move. While people are entitled to film others and there’s definitely context, if someone were to ask for the filming to stop, you would expect a decent person to comply.

    Add to that, the lack of agency that a hidden camera gives. There’s the real issue; being unaware of being filmed by a possible pervert and not having the ability to request it stop or move away. If it’s a phone or GoPro and I can see it, I can ask politely or choose to move. Agency.

    I don’t think people underestimate at all how much they’re being filmed. I’m aware, I don’t like it and there’s nothing I can do about it. I think that’s somewhat different to a glasshole filming people for their own entertainment or whatever to be honest.

    I agree with the Senators opposing this. I think these should be banned, with non recording pairs that identify objects made available to the visually impaired.

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

    Add to that, the lack of agency that a hidden camera gives. There’s the real issue; being unaware of being filmed by a possible pervert and not having the ability to request it stop or move away

    This is even worse when it comes to the filming of children. Considering the market for children's images on the dark web and so on, we really should not be having second thoughts about these bloody spying tools. I don't know if these glasses have zoom capacity but if they do it would be easy, for example, for some sleaze to be filming young children on play equipment from a distance and neither guardians nor children be aware. There could be some many other instances. We must protect the children.

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

    I wasn't arguing for or against the glasses specifically. We actually had a post about those a week or so ago. I'm just pointing out that 'privacy' is a dumb argument to hang your position on. In public, there is no such thing and hasn't been for years (decades).

    Those CCTV cameras, dashcams, just randoms filming stuff on the street are all around you. Yes, security and safety are the reasons most of the cameras film everything in front of them. But you do something stupid or funny enough, and that footage is suddenly posted online. You have no agency. You have no recourse to have the footage removed.

    If you are out in public, just assume you're on camera. Because odds are decent that you are.

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

    I’m sorry, I can’t agree, I think it’s a very good one to hang an argument on.

    Just because there’s little we can do about CCTV or security cameras, which generally are there for different reasons doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned or dismiss the invasion of privacy these offer.

    The issue I have with them is one of privacy invasion, both for me if they’re used on me and particularly women whose privacy is being invaded.Sevuroty ca,eras and their abuse doesn’t alter that for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (1 child)

    Just so we're clear: It's the glasses specifically that you take issue with?
    Hats are fine, a pen in a suit pocket is cool. A Cross-body bag is not going to be a problem. And so long as you don't hide it in a pair of glasses, tiny cameras like this can be worn anywhere on someone's body with no problem?

    But those glasses - they're totally out. Is that the point where someone is crossing a line?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago

    Not exactly, I don’t like any form of hidden filming device. They all remove the ability for someone to do something about it. Even if it’s walking away.

    It so happens that at this time, with this current conversation, it’s these glasses.

    It’s the lack of agency for someone not to recognise that and take whatever action they deem necessary to move themselves.

    I’d be on board with glasses that identified and did not record for the visually impaired.

    So yeah just so we are clear it’s all these devices but at this time, the discussion is these glasses. And the tech bro arseholes behind them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent