[littlestymaar]

The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed.

But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own.

[throwaway808081]

Do not expect this from the UK. That fight despite millions of signatures was batted down:

The UK is introducing passed legislation that citizens' digital IDs are owned by a Google or Apple smartphone.

The UK already have such laws active and in force that company directors must submit their information through an app available only from Google or Apple. It is clear 'digital IDs' will go the same way.

It's not about age or attribute verification. It's about tracking. Which Google excel at, the only alternative Apple and their opt-in.

Governments are quite happy making citizens have megacorps track their lives.

[graemep]

Digital ID legislation has not been introduced.

Company directors do not have to use the app. The app is one of three ways of doing it.

[hackingonempty]

In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.

[Lio]

We have a similar law in the UK but it does depend on what you mean by public place.

In somewhere like a public toilet block, at least here in the UK, you have an expectation of privacy. If some creep in Meta glasses is filming you take a piss then they are breaking the law.

If you were on a public beach sun bathing then you probably don't have that expectation of privacy.

[ajsnigrutin]

In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".

[circuit10]

You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory

Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?

[wongarsu]

The easier way of phrasing it is "you can't record in public, except in certain circumstances". Those certain circumstances just happen to encompass most things reasonable people want to do.

In Europe there is very much an expectation of privacy in public. But that expectation is not absolute, it competes with various other rights and public interests.

For example you can make street photography without blurred faces, because art trumps privacy in this instance. If you start making photos of individuals instead of areas then privacy wins out again and you need consent. A surveillance camera is not creating art, so it doesn't have that excuse going for it and needs a really good reason to be pointed at public areas (and "I fear someone's going to break into my private home" is generally not a good enough reason). And even if you can set up the surveillance camera, operating it requires complying with the GDPR, which has a lot to say on that topic

[namibj]

Note the "I fear" is treated differently if you e.g. have to remove graffiti hate speech from your front door on a weekly basis. It's just about the "you better have a concrete reason to fear, pure abstract fear won't cut it", and as always, data minimization principles do apply.

[ajsnigrutin]

There's a difference between taking a photo of eg. random people on the street (eg. trying to show someone that there's a big crowd at the bus station) and recording 24/7 the same bus station. A single photo held by a single person makes it hard to establish movement patterns etc. for those people, while a 24/7 recording can be used for creating a database of all those people coming and leaving.

There are many nuances in privacy law, not just pertaining to photo vs. 24/7 recording, but also expectation of privacy, intent, etc. Taking a photo of some random touristy area with people there is ok, singling out a person is not. Same for eg. taking a panoramic shot of a city where someone just happens to be undressing by the window in one of the buildings in the photo, vs using a telephoto lens pointed at that persons window... so, were you taking a touristy photo vs intending to violate their privacy.

Same nuances, mostly regarding intent appear in other laws too.. you can walk in public, you can stand in a public location, you can work the same shift as your coworker and walk the same path as them, since you both finished work at at the same time. But under slightly different circumstances that same "walking down a public road" or "standing in a public location" can be interpreted as eg. stalking if done with different intent.

That's why there are signs at every store entrance about video surveillance, even though it's private property, they must give info to customers who the contact person for the recording is and they need to have some kind of a retention policy defined for those recordings, and even then they cannot record in areas where people expect privacy (bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc.).

So yeah, taking a random photo of your street is not problematic, since it's "random" and done for other reasons (eg. tourism) while recording 24/7 is gathering enough data to be possibly problematic. Some streets (eg highways) are under video surveillance, but there are signs saying that when you enter the highway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mj3GjA7m8BLwUfs77

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

Short answer is its complicated and will vary from member state to member state. My parental unit had a dispute with neighbor over where his camera is pointed and filed some motion to see what he does with it ( 'not making a database' part ), but the law was mostly toothless as the enforcement of it lacked. On the other hand, the dispute part of the real estate was handed real toot sweet, because everyone and their mother cares about outcomes in those.

tldr: I wish I could tell you there is a simple tldr

[jorvi]

> toot sweet

Not sure if intentional but just in case: the usual term is "tout de suite"

[tomalpha]

It might be in the original French, but it’s been anglicised and adopted as an English language term:

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/toot-sweet_adv?tl=true

[littlestymaar]

Some right to record in public may be protected by the current jurisprudence invoking the first amendment, but the first amendment itself obviously doesn't say anything about the right to record in public:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[delichon]

It's a bank shot. SCOTUS has recognized that newsgathering gets some first amendment protection because "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated" (Branzburg v Hayes).

[littlestymaar]

One could argue that having a contractor of US intelligence service (Google) collecting data on every citizens all the time isn't exactly “news gathering” and ought to be prevented if one wanted to abid to the spirit of the Constitution.

[hackingonempty]

Recording is writing, which is speech, which is protected.

[littlestymaar]

“Performance is speech, murder is performance, hence murder is protected”

Fortunately it doesn't work like that.

Also not every speech is protected, you aren't allowed to leak classified info even though doing that is purely speech.

[iamnothere]

Private businesses, however, can choose to refuse service for any reason as long as it’s not discriminatory. If enough businesses collaborated to create a “no camera glasses” policy, people might be less likely to buy them. This could keep the market small.

Perhaps a good approach would be to pressure businesses about this. Frankly they probably don’t want pervasive recording of their employees anyway.

[amitav1]

I highly doubt that businesses will take a stand against these camera glasses. The kind of people that buy these smart glasses are usually a) wealthy, and b) not very frugal. What business would want to turn away the people with lots of money?

[iamnothere]

Walmart? Target? Other large retailers who don’t want people covertly filming employee interactions for “content?”

[astura]

Plus the footage goes on social media as free advertising.

[umanwizard]

> What business would want to turn away the people with lots of money?

Plenty? Random dive bars, for example, probably don’t care how rich you are (it’s not like a millionaire is going to buy 10x more $5 beers than an average person).

[sghiassy]

I’m d assume businesses like social media attention, so if these cameras post to Social Media that’s free advertising.

Also, how would you differentiate banning cameras on glasses vs cameras on smartphones. It could get murky

[littlestymaar]

> I’m d assume businesses like social media attention, so if these cameras post to Social Media that’s free advertising.

If you care about attention, a move like that is likely going to create enough controversy to get you a great deal of attention actually.

[merely-unlikely]

Corporations don't need cameras to track people, they have had the ability to track bluetooth emissions for well over a decade. Unless you turn off a lot of connectivity settings, smartphones are pretty much open tracking devices.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...

[brador]

The kinetic solution starts at misdemeanour.

[jeroenhd]

So Ring doorbells and networked CCTV? We're there already. Billboards alongside roads containing targeted advertising already exist, too.

I'm not too fussed about the advertisers in this aspect. The people these companies sell data too not meant for advertising are much more dangerous. That includes the government.

[alexfoo]

> The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed.

That's very similar to the basis of _The Circle_ by Dave Eggers.

[dotancohen]

It's not only personal advertisements for consumerism. It's also personalized political messages. That is dangerous to the nations and states and their citizens.

[lukan]

"But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own."

It will need both. Secretly recording in the public is already prohibited in many if not most jurisdictions, but ad far as I know, not really prosecuted.