> But the direction is clear, and it points at the camera. The obvious fixes are louder ones: a brighter light, an audible shutter, a clear signal when video is rolling.
The same technical fixes were proposed for cameraphones in the late 2000s - lights, shutter sounds, etc. Most phones in that era experimented with various implementations, but pretty much all of them were easily defeated.
As you say, the real solution is to make it socially unacceptable to use them in public places. The appropriate tools are banning and shunning, not lights and sounds.
I believe regulations in Japan currently prevent disabling the camera shutter sound in order to combat privacy invading photos being taken, so this still happens in some places.
Of course, those devices aren't made by a company whose sole purpose is the total and utter destruction of privacy, which is where this idea perhaps breaks down for the Ray-Bans.
I'm not sure the opposition is based on the company behind them.
Camera phones are probably accepted because you only pull it out when you can feel for the consent wherever it seems you're about to point the thing. With camera glasses, you're always pointing it right at the face of everyone you talk to.
I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
The mass surveillance you don’t expect also involves trying to normalize privacy violations by shifting the Overton window.
Big Tech gets a twofold advantage from these smart glasses:
- They know in real time what you’re seeing, doing, and where you are
- They can see what other people are doing—even those who may not be on their platform
I wager the pubs prefer that security cameras were their cameras, under their control, for CCTV, which must also comply with GDPR and be signposted, not a bunch of random patrons with spy glasses?
> But the direction is clear, and it points at the camera. The obvious fixes are louder ones: a brighter light, an audible shutter, a clear signal when video is rolling.
I wouldn't trust those. Why would I?
The obvious fix is to remove the camera, period.
The same technical fixes were proposed for cameraphones in the late 2000s - lights, shutter sounds, etc. Most phones in that era experimented with various implementations, but pretty much all of them were easily defeated.
As you say, the real solution is to make it socially unacceptable to use them in public places. The appropriate tools are banning and shunning, not lights and sounds.
I believe regulations in Japan currently prevent disabling the camera shutter sound in order to combat privacy invading photos being taken, so this still happens in some places.
Of course, those devices aren't made by a company whose sole purpose is the total and utter destruction of privacy, which is where this idea perhaps breaks down for the Ray-Bans.
I'm not sure the opposition is based on the company behind them.
Camera phones are probably accepted because you only pull it out when you can feel for the consent wherever it seems you're about to point the thing. With camera glasses, you're always pointing it right at the face of everyone you talk to.
I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
Don't just ban them -- make the camera users legally liable for invasion of privacy.
The mass surveillance you don’t expect also involves trying to normalize privacy violations by shifting the Overton window.
Big Tech gets a twofold advantage from these smart glasses: - They know in real time what you’re seeing, doing, and where you are - They can see what other people are doing—even those who may not be on their platform
[flagged]
I wager the pubs prefer that security cameras were their cameras, under their control, for CCTV, which must also comply with GDPR and be signposted, not a bunch of random patrons with spy glasses?