You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public. Do you punch every person filming in public? and if you punch someone wearing the glasses, most likely they weren’t even recording.
I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should
overthrow the orange turd
campaign for it democratically
not go around punching people for violating a legal right they do not have. Your discomfort at maybe having your picture doesn’t entitle you to violence.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook is the one doing the unreasonable search, and we simply buy their data
You didn’t answer the question. You could just have said that you’re overreacting because it’s tech associated with Meta and you don’t like them, even though it’s basically the same as a phone, just on your face.
You think smart glasses have enough battery to record constantly? lol.
You mean you can’t tell the difference between someone visibly recording you and someone recording you with a hidden camera? You feel like both of those are the same thing?
I feel like if the problem is being recorded, it doesn’t matter whether it’s done with a hidden or visible camera.
I feel like if the problem is being secretly recorded, you should be just as mad at bags possibly being used to xonceal a recording phone as at these glasses.
If I see someone filming me, I ask them to stop. That will escalate if they don’t.
I think what people are missing here is the intention. There’s generalised filming of your surroundings, surveillance cameras…these glasses are intended for use in a social capacity. That will move into privacy issues and perverted use.
These peoples right to use these glasses, as far as I’m concerned, does not eclipse my privacy or lack of desire to be filmed and put on Metas platforms and if I find someone using them on me they’ll be fucking told.
Most likely either the glasses are in a state of recording, or the wearer has no idea what it’s doing.
Damned! After so many scandals, people still assume Meta will do what it claims and not trick its users!
Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Fool me 42 times, more, please MOOOOORE!
Recording from a camera consumes upwards of 1W on mobile platforms. With the ~160mAh battery in Ray Ban Meta smart glasses, the battery would last about 40 minutes, assuming they are doing nothing else. Given that the radio needs to be powered to upload that footage somewhere, and doing all this will keep the SoC in a higher wake state, that is a very optimistic upper bound.
I’m sorry that you and everyone who downvoted me think that hating on Meta is more real than physics.
facebook knowing my personal information against my will goes against my right to privacy. there are also the ethics of recording people in secret instead of making it very obvious. no, a blinking red dot does not count, and it can also be covered with a special purpose-made made black sticker.
now that i think about it, I’m just not comfortable being filmed without consent by strangers at all, in any way, regardless of where the images end up.
i don’t think people should get used to it either. it’s incredibly creepy, even if no law is broken where you live.
and yes, i do understand that in many places just being in public reduces your right to privacy so that you’re legally allowed to be photographed as long as you’re not the focus. i don’t care. still creepy.
I’m sure you’re aware while you traverse in public you are on camera pretty much the entire time, right? There are cameras everywhere always filming, some you know about and can clearly see, some you will never know about and never see. Your face is in a database whether you consent or not.
The part about Facebook knowing your information without your consent? Do you have an account with them?
The proliferation of cameras in public is not a good thing. I am yet to see data showing it reduces criminality (supposed to be the intent), meanwhile it’s a massive surveillance system.
And the fact that a given situation is bad is hardly a good argument to promote making it worse.
Meta collects data on everyone: from contact info in cellphone through their apps, uploaded photos, videos etc.
If you don’t have an account nor consent to anything, they will just not show the data, but will still build the profile combining different sources and feed it to its algorithms.
Facebook has a profile on everyone. Accounts or not. They are just like every other data broker. All they want is access to more data and more data.
All that medical data is the holy grail… Anyone who thinks medical data will remain private is naive. All it takes is very deep pockets and lawmakers who want contributions to change the laws.
I agree it can be creepy. But where I live, and in the US, as well as many other countries, you have no expectation of privacy in public. That’s why it’s called public. It might feel right to want to impose some restrictions on public photography, but since there’s absolutely no way to fairly draw a line, it’s better to not impose limits at all.
there’s absolutely a way to draw a line. no smart glasses. even if there wasn’t, no regulation for the sake of regulators being too dumb is the worst take possible.
No smart glasses. Alright, then I would wear hidden camera’s in the buttons of my shirt. The point I’m trying to make here, is that this is not a technological debate. It’s about freedoms: having your freedoms means having to respect others’ as well.
What fact about yourself are you least willing to share with strangers?
If there is no way to tell if that is a reasonable question for me to ask, then by what metric do you decide whether or not to answer it? Does that metric act as a stand-in for “reasonableness” to you, and if so then how do you square it with your earlier insistence that drawing such a line is impossible? If not, why?
Americans are already getting brutalized and robbed for using recording equipment in public. To be fair, the intersection of protesters and glasses-camera people is very small.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook does the unreasonable searching and we pay them for any data they collect
Funny how people think they have a “right” of privacy in public… there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. Besides, there are cameras EVERYWHERE always filming.
And you’re the second person in this thread who can think. Thank you.
I’ve been threatened with violence twice already in this very thread, in the hypothetical scenario that I would film them. I don’t think Lemmy is for me. Too violent.
You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights
You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public. Do you punch every person filming in public? and if you punch someone wearing the glasses, most likely they weren’t even recording.
Uhhhh, you actually do.* I am not sure if you know, but different places have different laws.
Not in the US
You do in Germany, except during events/gatherings/marches.
I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should
not go around punching people for violating a legal right they do not have. Your discomfort at maybe having your picture doesn’t entitle you to violence.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook is the one doing the unreasonable search, and we simply buy their data
Sweet summer child
You didn’t answer the question. You could just have said that you’re overreacting because it’s tech associated with Meta and you don’t like them, even though it’s basically the same as a phone, just on your face.
You think smart glasses have enough battery to record constantly? lol.
You mean you can’t tell the difference between someone visibly recording you and someone recording you with a hidden camera? You feel like both of those are the same thing?
I feel like if the problem is being recorded, it doesn’t matter whether it’s done with a hidden or visible camera.
I feel like if the problem is being secretly recorded, you should be just as mad at bags possibly being used to xonceal a recording phone as at these glasses.
If I see someone filming me, I ask them to stop. That will escalate if they don’t.
I think what people are missing here is the intention. There’s generalised filming of your surroundings, surveillance cameras…these glasses are intended for use in a social capacity. That will move into privacy issues and perverted use.
These peoples right to use these glasses, as far as I’m concerned, does not eclipse my privacy or lack of desire to be filmed and put on Metas platforms and if I find someone using them on me they’ll be fucking told.
Most likely either the glasses are in a state of recording, or the wearer has no idea what it’s doing. Damned! After so many scandals, people still assume Meta will do what it claims and not trick its users! Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Fool me 42 times, more, please MOOOOORE!
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving battery capacity and power consumption puts that idea to bed.
Nope. These things can certainly take pics regularly and still last.
Recording from a camera consumes upwards of 1W on mobile platforms. With the ~160mAh battery in Ray Ban Meta smart glasses, the battery would last about 40 minutes, assuming they are doing nothing else. Given that the radio needs to be powered to upload that footage somewhere, and doing all this will keep the SoC in a higher wake state, that is a very optimistic upper bound.
I’m sorry that you and everyone who downvoted me think that hating on Meta is more real than physics.
What right would be violated here exactly?
facebook knowing my personal information against my will goes against my right to privacy. there are also the ethics of recording people in secret instead of making it very obvious. no, a blinking red dot does not count, and it can also be covered with a special purpose-made made black sticker.
now that i think about it, I’m just not comfortable being filmed without consent by strangers at all, in any way, regardless of where the images end up.
i don’t think people should get used to it either. it’s incredibly creepy, even if no law is broken where you live.
and yes, i do understand that in many places just being in public reduces your right to privacy so that you’re legally allowed to be photographed as long as you’re not the focus. i don’t care. still creepy.
If recording in public wasn’t legal, then cops could legally arrest you for filming them brutalizing people for no reason.
I’m sure you’re aware while you traverse in public you are on camera pretty much the entire time, right? There are cameras everywhere always filming, some you know about and can clearly see, some you will never know about and never see. Your face is in a database whether you consent or not.
The part about Facebook knowing your information without your consent? Do you have an account with them?
i know, doesn’t change my stance. i don’t have a facebook account, at most a shadow profile because others may talk about me
The proliferation of cameras in public is not a good thing. I am yet to see data showing it reduces criminality (supposed to be the intent), meanwhile it’s a massive surveillance system.
And the fact that a given situation is bad is hardly a good argument to promote making it worse.
Meta collects data on everyone: from contact info in cellphone through their apps, uploaded photos, videos etc. If you don’t have an account nor consent to anything, they will just not show the data, but will still build the profile combining different sources and feed it to its algorithms.
It has been a well known practice for many years.
Facebook has a profile on everyone. Accounts or not. They are just like every other data broker. All they want is access to more data and more data.
All that medical data is the holy grail… Anyone who thinks medical data will remain private is naive. All it takes is very deep pockets and lawmakers who want contributions to change the laws.
I agree it can be creepy. But where I live, and in the US, as well as many other countries, you have no expectation of privacy in public. That’s why it’s called public. It might feel right to want to impose some restrictions on public photography, but since there’s absolutely no way to fairly draw a line, it’s better to not impose limits at all.
there’s absolutely a way to draw a line. no smart glasses. even if there wasn’t, no regulation for the sake of regulators being too dumb is the worst take possible.
No smart glasses. Alright, then I would wear hidden camera’s in the buttons of my shirt. The point I’m trying to make here, is that this is not a technological debate. It’s about freedoms: having your freedoms means having to respect others’ as well.
Like respecting others’ freedom to a reasonable degree of privacy.
To draw a line between what is and isn’t reasonable is impossible.
What fact about yourself are you least willing to share with strangers?
If there is no way to tell if that is a reasonable question for me to ask, then by what metric do you decide whether or not to answer it? Does that metric act as a stand-in for “reasonableness” to you, and if so then how do you square it with your earlier insistence that drawing such a line is impossible? If not, why?
why the need for hidden recording equipment anyway? do you wanna spy on women that badly?
Americans are already getting brutalized and robbed for using recording equipment in public. To be fair, the intersection of protesters and glasses-camera people is very small.
You’re projecting. I only want to spy on men.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook does the unreasonable searching and we pay them for any data they collect
Quite many when used anywhere except in public space.
Funny how people think they have a “right” of privacy in public… there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. Besides, there are cameras EVERYWHERE always filming.
This only makes sense if you imagine rights are granted to you by your wise and benevolent king when he’s in a good mood and no one else.
And you’re the second person in this thread who can think. Thank you.
I’ve been threatened with violence twice already in this very thread, in the hypothetical scenario that I would film them. I don’t think Lemmy is for me. Too violent.
Bye, then
We will not miss you