[jspdown]

Don't you need to obtain consent before filming random people in the street? I already feel uncomfortable when someone takes a photo in public and I happen to be in it, but this type of device takes things to an entirely different level. With smart glasses, there's no visible cue that you're being recorded. No phone held up, no camera in sight. I'm questioning the legality of this in Europe, where privacy laws tend to be stricter. In the meantime, should I just assume that anyone wearing these glasses is always filming? And would I be within my rights to ask them to stop the moment I notice them?

[amszmidt]

In Sweden, you're allowed to film/photograph in public without the need for any consent.

There is (in general) no expectation of privacy in public in Europe. How you can use the material though, is a different matter ...

[matsemann]

Note that there is a difference between being allowed to take a photograph, and being allowed to share it. Unless you're threatening or harassing, you're mostly free to photograph as you want. But you might not be allowed to publish it.

[Hamuko]

Pretty much the same in Finland. You are allowed to film/photograph as much as you want in a public place, but publishing the material might be against the law depending on the contents. Particularly the law regarding "dissemination of information that violates privacy". It's fine to publish a photo of people walking on the street, but you'll probably get into trouble for uploading an arrest to YouTube where the suspect is recognizable.

[consp]

In a general rule you can record. But sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party. There is also the difference of recording a public place with people in the background and clearly recording someone: The first is fine, the second is not (without consent). You also cannot disable the recording light, doing so would put you up for libel en decency lawsuits (and libel and public decency can be criminal, not just misdemeanors).

So if you take a video of specific people looking at flowers at the Keukenhof you would have to ask them for permission if you are recording them primarily and publish it but recording for yourself is fine as it is a clearly public space. If you take a picture of all the flower and catch some people in it in the background you are fine. If you do it in a place where people do not expect it they can ask you to remove the video and they have to (e.g. in a restaurant when you are eating as it is not expected to be recorded there).

There are some exceptions for journalism, law enforcement and public good. I doubt strongly any Meta (AI) post would classify for that.

There is also the small caveat that if you can avoid recording innocent bystanders you must. E.g. putting up a doorbell camera and pointing it to the street instead of your door is bad as it's easily avoidable by putting it top down.

[whyoh]

>sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party.

Wouldn't that make "photo cloud backups" without consent illegal as well?

People do that all the time, sending private photos to Google, Apple etc.

[adamauckland]

People send their private photos to their private cloud backups with the reasonable expectation that those photos remain private and therefore not a privacy violation.

If it transpired Google or Apple had staff looking through people's cloud photo backups, yes this would be considered a violation because "cloud backup" is framed as a personal solution and not a hosting or processing solution.

[whyoh]

Google and Apple's staff do look at people's photos, at least occasionally. The typical excuse is detecting rule violations.

It's not the same as doing this systematically (like Meta here), but these are shades of gray. A serious privacy law would prohibit both.

[trashb]

Yes, actually the AVG (GDPR) is very broad in what it considers personal data.

Sadly that means it is not enforced well since it is too broad to be enforced in a meaningful way. And therefore it is violated A LOT, both by companies or people since no one can be bothered!

AVG (GDPR) includes the following things as personal data: name, address, phone number, passport photo, information about someone's behavior on websites, allergies, customer or staff numbers, recognizable recordings and more.

Rule of thumb, any information that can be used to relate a specific person.

[rubzah]

An important distinction is that you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it (so the glasses do belong in that category). You're not allowed to set up a camera to autonomously film/photograph outside of your own private property.

Besides that there is the issue of publishing said footage, as others point out.

[flakeoil]

> you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it

Does it really count as "actively doing it" when the glasses are constantly filming while you do other stuff. With a phone/camera people can see you are filming or taking pictures. In many countries the shutter needs to make a sound when taking pictures. For video surveilance cameras a noticeable sign or sticker is needed.

[mystraline]

Why not? FLOCK does. And for worse reasons.

[pfortuny]

Privacy of your image, not of your voice, at least as regards recordings.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

US here. Definitely more permissive than any EU nation. Public space typically means free for all in terms of recording[1]. The incident I link is relevant as we are bound to see a whole new bunch of 'content creators' going for various new ways to engage the public.

https://patch.com/illinois/lakezurich/il-student-punches-pro...

[egorfine]

> Don't you need to obtain consent

Different laws in different countries.

> before filming random people in the street?

That would make taking pictures impossible, so no, such a requirement cannot be reasonably() codified into law.

() By reasonably I mean in a way to be actually followed. Of course there are lots of impossible laws created by politicians to cater to their fan base.

[fergie]

I'm pretty confident that these would be illegal in public spaces in Norway.

[Coeur]

Many countries in Europe do indeed require consent. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#France

[anhner]

this page is about you do with the photos, not if you are allowed to take them.

[graemep]

In the UK the general rule is that you can take pictures and video in public places (there are exceptions and restrictions).

If you could not take photos of people in public places it would imply banning a lot of things that have been acceptable for a long time.

[stbtrax]

These glasses have a light when recording. You can buy many hidden recording glasses that are much more discrete with no light. Are you also paranoid when someone has their smartphone in their shirt pocket with the camera exposed?

[lewo]

On the french trains, you can sit opposite someone else. I'm feeling really uncomfortable when this person scrolls on its phone, with the phone back camera pointing to me for hours.

I sometime ask this person to hide the camera and they generally understand my feeling.

[perlgeek]

In Germany, you don't need permission for recording image material (including moving images) in public places, though usage of the material might be restricted.

However, audio recording of conversations is prohibited.

[u1hcw9nx]

Filming vs. Publishing

Filming is legal. In public spaces (streets, parks), there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." You do not need permission to point a camera. The exceptions are usually for offensive or harassing type of filming.

Publishing is regulated. In EU, once you share the footage , you are "processing personal data" under GDPR. There are also exceptions where publishing without permission is legal. Legitimate Interest (security footage or incidental background), Public Interest/Journalism, and Artistic Expression.

Generally you must ask permission to publish, not to film. Although asking permission to film is good ethical principle too.

[chokma]

Note that there is a difference between Panoramafreiheit (freedom to record a public building / space with people walking around) versus recording the street before your house with an always-on security camera (almost always forbidden).

Even having a fake camera pointing at a public space can be forbidden as it creates surveilance pressure on people using the space.

[itake]

No, for most countries

I mean, otherwise countries couldn’t use security cameras

[contubernio]

In Spain a private entity can't put a security camera that points into public spaces ...

[fabbbbb]

What’s the chain of reasoning that brought you to this conclusion?

[tene80i]

That's quite an antagonistic way to request an explanation, particularly as it seems straightforward:

If you needed consent to film people in the street, security cameras (in public places) couldn't be used. They _are_ used. So it must not be the case that you need consent to film people in the street. Assuming there is not just widespread lawbreaking, I suppose.

[rubzah]

The difference is if you are actively filming, or the camera is set up to film by itself. Security cameras are in the latter category and therefore can only be used on your own property (you can allow someone else to do it on your own property, such as a security firm).

[kalaksi]

That depends on who has set up the security camera and what area it covers.

[tene80i]

How so? You mean businesses vs private individuals filming the street? Or police, for example?

[kalaksi]

Depends on a country, but yes, police generally has more privileges in that regard. The laws here are also different for casual public filming vs. permanent camera or otherwise targeted filming (without consent) in public space. It also matters what you do with the material. I actually don't know if businesses are anything special compared to individuals in that regard. They can, of course, have security cameras filming their private properties (like individuals can) as long as they are open about it. And again, they can't use or spread the material however they want.

[Y-bar]

Given that the article is from a Swedish publication, you often need prior permission to use a security camera which could take images of the genera public. Much of this is regulated with GDPR.

https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/camera-surveillance/

[mrkickling]

Only for stationary cameras. Filming/photographing with a non-stationary camera is allowed as long as it is not in a sensitive situation (in their home, in the toilet/changing room/etc).

[Y-bar]

So I can mount my security camera on a WallE-like chassis to randomly drive around my property and I am no longer under the same strict regulation? What exactly made you come to that conclusion when IMY considers things like dashcams to be under the regulations of privacy and GDPR?