[esafak]

"Smart" glasses erode everyone's privacy unlike any other technology. Cameras and cell phones have to be held up to record. Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously, without anyone's consent. If that is not reason enough to object what more do you want, my fist in your face?

[freedomben]

I think your point would be a lot better without the threat of physical violence at the end (which seems both silly, uncalled for, and unnecessary).

I'm very deeply concerned about privacy, but a simple thing like an "on" or "recording" light on the glasses could alert people that recording is on.

[esafak]

By the time I am close enough see that puny light you've already recorded me. It's an opt out mechanism, not opt in. Maybe if there was an unobtrusive way for me to prevent recording through a wearable, like a ROBOTS.TXT file, or a universal gesture (a middle finger, or a grimace) to indicate my desire to be erased from your recording, I would consider it. I would also want some assurance that my request is honored. Given how unlikely this all is, I am simply saying "nope" today.

It's fine in situations where consent is obtained in advance; e.g., events.

I should add that I take more pictures than the average person, and used to be a street photographer, so I have been in situations where people did not want their likeness captured. Also in countries where people objected to photography altogether on the grounds that it stole their spirit. I always had to make a decision with my trigger finger, so I was able to apply human oversight. My stance is informed by experience.

[nickthegreek]

Committing violence against others who are not doing anything illegal seems like a pretty easy way for you to lose a lot of privacy.

Edit: OP removed their reference to punching people who would dare film them. This thread will no longer make sense to other's trying to catch up.

[pzo]

Try taking your phone out and start recording when talking to some random people on the street or in shop at cash register, or when talking to policeman etc. and see if none of them will start getting very annoyed or even aggressive - even if it's not (maybe) illegal people won't like it.

[nickthegreek]

People are allowed to be annoyed. If you punch someone, or break/steal their property for recording, there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you. People record others all the time, there is this whole Karen phenomenon that is kinda hard not to know about..

[esafak]

People should not be recording others all the time. It is not consensual. This is the crux of the debate. The legality is debated, and it varies by jurisdiction: https://www.notta.ai/en/blog/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone...

Don't squander your right to record in public on something as mundane and personal as a civilian minding his own business. Record a crime, at least. Otherwise the law may change and you may lose that "right".

[SoftTalker]

> there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you

There are, but they are extraordinarly unlikely. People push and shove each other all the time over minor insults and disagreements and almost never end up in front of a judge. Most cops would just say "you should have put the camera down when he asked you to, now stop wasting my time."

[pzo]

I didn't mean that this is ok to punch someone. My point is it will annoy a lot of people and some will eventually punch you. There are many legal things that if you do you are just asking yourself for a problem.

I also think in some countries it might be illegal to record someone either video or audio without explicitly telling or asking for permission. Even at the airport (at least in many I have been) it was not allowed to do video recording

[Gud]

There is a big difference between actively choosing to film, showing you are filming someone and a passive camera always on. The first one can be easily avoided, the second one not so much.

[paganel]

Then what else have we got left in order to confront those very rude people that film you without your consent? It's pretty clear that the law is not up to the task.

[tjpnz]

But there will be physical violence if that light goes on infront of the wrong person. Make no mistake.

[pzo]

such LED can be covered with tape, paint or damaged on purpose.

[antiterra]

The copy claims the glasses will complain audibly if you cover up the LED, but doesn’t say whether or not it stops recording. It’s also not clear how easily circumvented this is, but they’ve obviously considered the angle.

[diffeomorphism]

Nah, earbuds and phones could do audio recording just fine and for longer. Adding video does not make it "unlike any other", so this is rather a minor erosion on top.

> Glasses can stream effortlessly and continuously

For a rather limited time duration and with a glowing light and with actually quite a bit of effort.

> without anyone's consent.

Why? You still need the same amount of consent as with any other camera.

[smolder]

Adding video is not a minor erosion on top of recording from a microphone.

[ActorNightly]

If you are in PUBLIC, that is by definition NOT PRIVATE.

[esafak]

Correct, and people do have expectations, albeit reduced, of privacy in public too. Moreover, this expectation is thankfully backed by the law in various jurisdictions. I would very much like to see those rights beefed up for the machine learning age, after reading all these comments.

Or would you like to live in a panopticon like the Chinese? Hey, you're on PUBLIC property, citizen! Smile for the camera, and don't think we can't read your lips. Like for real; we got software for that.

[vunderba]

I'm surprised you're not already aware that this is already the norm. The number of cc style cameras in London alone should give you pause.

If we're already dealing with ubiquitous recording in public, I'd rather give some of that power back to individuals rather than the government.

[esafak]

It is not the norm everywhere and, in any case, we should push back. It gives me no joy to walk past video surveillance cameras. They stick out like sore thumbs to me and make me feel treated like a potential criminal.

I believe we reclaim no power by recording our fellow citizens going about their daily lives. We merely augment the corpus of corporations and governments.

My beef with these smart glasses is that while they can be used to document crimes, I estimate they will typically be used for mundane purposes, while eroding the privacy of law-abiding citizens. More so than cell phones, which require you to at least hold the thing up and press a button. You will do so to document a crime, but not to mindlessly and continuously record everything you see. This changes the balance.

[ActorNightly]

In case my top level comment was not clear:

if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy outside of physical interaction in your immediate space outside your body (and even then, on crowded public transport, this is not the case). If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that and them recording it.

If you don't agree, you are essentially saying that you are entitled to do and say what you want, but gathering any evidence of you doing so is not allowed, which not only doesn't make sense but is also pretty indicative that you are looking to be up to no good.

[esafak]

> If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that and them recording it.

There is all the difference in the world. This is what we're debating here. According to your binary logic, everyone is within their right to record and retain in perpetuity all public activity, with arbitrary high fidelity. And if that's fair game, I suppose you'd be okay with unifying them into one view and mining it? Like China, but even worse. I would be disgusted and ashamed to live in such a society. Fortunately, the law does not say this.

[wolverine876]

> I'd rather give some of that power back to individuals

You'd be giving it to Facebook, though I suppose Zuckerberg is an individual.

[diffeomorphism]

For this specific product. If successful, you will no doubt get some i-glasses, goggles, galaxy glasses, ... and probably some infighting for openglasses and libreglasses.

[ActorNightly]

First, just because China did it doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. The real bad part of Chinese system are the laws that govern what is bad and what the punishment - the surveillance in itself alone is neutral at worst. More information never hurts.

Secondly, this would be "society filming society", without the government being involved.

I really see only positive with the mass adoption of these things. When I go out in public, I drive respectfully, I don't cut in line, I clean up if I make a mess, I don't play loud music or have an obnoxiously loud car, I don't talk loudly, and am generally not an asshole to people. If someone needs the fear of being recorded, and put online and losing their job to not act like asshole, then so be it.

[wolverine876]

> More information never hurts.

How do you reach that conclusion?

> this would be "society filming society"

It would also be a corporation filming private citizens on a very large scale (and government can obtain data from corporations).

> If someone needs the fear of being recorded, and put online and losing their job to not act like asshole, then so be it.

People are attacked and shamed for many things that are private or harmless or even good things.

[ActorNightly]

>How do you reach that conclusion?

Because the hypothetical damage a bad member of society could do outweighs the potential risk of private life details leaking (and any effect resulting from this) for good members of society.

Say you live in a neighborhood with 50 people, and nobody knows anything about each other. Then one day, a hacker comes in an publishes a lot of private details about every single resident - grocery shopping lists, movie preferences, political leanings, website search history, even private videos and photos. However, it turns out that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while another one deals drugs. Getting information on those two is extremely valuable to the neighborhood, even if it came at a price of reduced privacy.

>It would also be a corporation filming private citizens on a very large scale (and government can obtain data from corporations).

I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment, but this never really plays out in reality. I mean, lived 4 years under a literal fascist and came out largely ok. There is enough due process in place and good people in the government to avoid misuse of power on a wide scale. Furthermore, the government is a combination of incompetency and not enough man power for the average citizen to worry about.

As for corporations, most people are ok with data being collected about them and used for things like advertising, because they still continue to use the products and apps, because the value add of those is worth more than privacy (which many people don't even understand what it is).

[wolverine876]

> However, it turns out that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while another one deals drugs.

Hypotheticals are easy to populate with supporting examples, but also in the neighborhood are the political enemies of the government, minorities, targets of oppression (e.g., LGBTQ), etc.

> I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment

Spare me your bullshit dimissal. Do you have anything substantive or is that all you have?

> this never really plays out in reality

I think cracking open any history book or reading the news will show the horrors inflicted by dictators. I'm glad you were ok.