104
Crossbenchers push for an import ban on 'pervert' smart glasses (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
22 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
[–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

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 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago* (1 child)

    We shouldn't lump CCTV cameras into the same bucket. Considering what the CC stands for. If someone has to request the recording and a government official has to then share the recording if the request is appropriate, that is a massive difference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    The vast majority of cameras are privately owned. Businesses, cars even residential doorbells are watching quiet streets these days.
    It has reached the point where you can't get 100m from home without being on camera. One in four cars that pass you have a dashcam. One in two houses (that seems crazy-high - not sure I can trust Google on that one) have cameras watching the front yard/street. Any of their owners can choose to upload footage of you to the Internet for whatever reason they like.

    It gets murky with what goes on inside shops. They're allowed to film you, but they may not be allowed to just upload that footage to the Internet. But their employees absolutely call out "interesting" footage to one another. "Check out this crazy kid's antics" or "Look at what this man/woman is wearing/doing". Should they? Probably not. Catching them at it and calling them out is not easy, though. And they'll probably just claim it as "training" or similar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 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 1 day 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 23 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