“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”
“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF’s investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”
Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck’s pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick’s sake.
Who would’ve known this would happen? Everyone. Meta knew people would use it for the bad and they still decided to go on with it because money.
Hope there will be a way to prevent being recorded, like some tech that disables it or something.
The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a reality where Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams come true.
There was a similar news article in Germany a few days ago. It was about a “pick-up artist/dating coach/influencer” named Erick Ronaldo secretly filming some girl at the Oktoberfest and posting it to his channel where that girl was ridiculed in the comments. (Fun fact: when the news media approached that guy and asked for a statement, he demanded $7,500 for an interview - which they, of course, didn’t pay)
heimliches Filmen ist aktuell in Deutschland nicht per se strafbar. Besonders in öffentlichen Räumen sind Betroffene kaum geschützt.
(Roughly in English)
covert filming isn’t currently illegal in Germany per se. Those filmed are rarely protected, especially in public
Filming in public not being illegal, I get, but he’s profiting off of her likeness. Ideally that would be illegal itself, but even if not, could she not sue him for a share? Obviously, putting the burden on victims is not a great remedy, especially because it’s expensive, a huge hassle, and risks the Streisand effect, but I could see a women’s rights organization orchestrating it for her and it might be possible to keep her identity secret.
Again, I don’t think that’s ideal, but it seems better than nothing and wouldn’t preclude criminal charges from going through if the government does figure out how to prosecute this
Filming by itself isn’t illegal in Germany, but publishing the footage without consent of everyone in the video is. (“Recht am eigenen Bild”) Don’t know how this applies if the perpetrator is from the USA and publishes the recording there, though.
And even if - good luck in suing someone from the US while you’re still in Germany.
You could at least get it taken down from YouTube through German privacy rights, since it was filmed in Germany.
Women filmed by men
We are absolutely free from prejudices, aren’t we?
And clichés?
Say, isn’t it a woman there in the picture, wearing these glasses? Oh, surely it is just because we always need a women for the title picture, don’t we? Still no cliches, I am sure.
Sincerely, if you can’t see that the trends of behaviours like this in men outpace women significantly, you have a heavily skewed view of the realities here.
There are other phenomena too that uniquely affect men, such as violence towards a spouse when the man’s team loses a sports game.
There is no equivalent for women at that scale. We as men have to own these realities.
No, the guys who are beating up their wives have to own it. It’s got fuck all to do with me as a non wife beater.
it’s got fuck all to do with me.
And therein lies your problem. You’ve taken something which seriously affects women at large, and reduced it down to something about yourself.
Empathy can be learned (it’s in us already, just needs unimpeded space). It’s a higher-order form of intelligence that helps us understand the connections between things that are not mechanical, but rather living: each other.
Living on your high horse is your problem, you need to get off it and get your feet back on the ground. Don’t lecture people when they disagree with you.
Violence and mistreatment of women is of course a huge problem, which is entirely the responsibility of the guys who are perpetrating it. There is nothing to “own” for the rest of us. Your empathy is worthless.
You know that leading with benign parts doesn’t successfully hide the contradictions and unhinged parts later, right?
Says you, an obvious idiot
I’m being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go
Yes but they have the right
In Europe, they often don’t. Enforcement is difficult though.
Yeah, unwritten laws are a silly idea.
Thank goodness they wrote in down then.
Oh. So somebody in power is going to do something about it. I’m glad.
This practicality has reportedly allowed some men in Brussels to secretly record women in public spaces.
You have no expectation of privacy in public places. In fact, if you’re in a public place you should assume you’re being recorded.
This tech has privacy concerns for sure, but this isn’t it.
And everyone else, but the rest of us don’t matter, I guess?
Idk. Bans on recording someone in public without their consent, feel like a really difficult thing to properly enforce – with or without the glasses. The number of people doing it with Smartphones already, in most jurisdictions at least, would make such a law’s wide-spread enforcement seem implausible. And I mean, you’re in a public area, so you sorta need to expect less privacy… because it’s in public?
Ya at least you can tell if someone’s pointing a phone at you and recording you. Can’t do that so easily when its glasses though. I knew these things were gonna be trouble from the start.
Dumb ficks buying these and helping the ultra wealthy expand their surveillance network. Jfc
One of the issues is that there are legitimate uses for the tech. Like there was a post recently of a girl with hearing disabilities, ecstatic that she’d gotten glasses that provide real-time subtitles to people she talks to. A business / space with a “No Smart Glasses” policy, could essentially be denying people with disabilities access, which could land them in hot water just the same as allowing unfettered smart glass recordings.
Having them become more ubiquitous will also likely have severe impact on regular day to day interactions, even outside of the pervo-sphere. Talking with friends, or even interactions with other parties, can become a lot more complicated when people can record every word, can take those exchanges out of context, and use them against you in things like court proceedings. Eg. friends will often embellish comments/positions a bit for dramatic effect / story-telling purposes, with an understanding that it’s not got to be perfectly accurate / you’re going to be held accountable for every phrase. So you’re right, that the more ‘obvious’ recording setup of phones limits this risk a bit… but not for long.
Not all smart glasses have cameras. A camera is not needed for real time subtitles.
It was an example of use cases for wearable tech and people with disabilities. Cameras aren’t ‘technically’ required for the other example I noted related to eavesdropping. There are plausible reasons why people with disabilities would need glasses with cameras, and ‘recording’ people extends beyond just camera-based recordings. The issue is more with ubiquitous, covert, wearable smart-tech.
Most places have laws on this. Often, it is legal to film/take photos, but not to focus on individuals.
Yeah, I’m not as fussed over having laws on books, but on whether those laws are realistically enforceable. Like I recall reading at some point that lots of jurisdictions in the states define things like Orgies as a group of three or more people in a private dwelling without shoes on, based on ancient prudish attempts to describe what goes on. That’s a law that’s “on the books”, but practically unenforceable.
Same sort of thought pattern, to me, generally applies to the recording of people in public. It’s practically implausible that govt can enforce it uniformly, and it’s on the books just so they can ‘throw another book’ at a perp who’s been arrested for far greater offenses. There are also potential issues with ‘two party consent’ type recording setups, where one party is wanting to document events for legitimate reasons (recording an interaction with police, to CYA).
Idk. People taking pictures / recording public ‘things’, doesn’t seem like a practical area for privacy legislation to come in overly heavy handed on.
It’ll only be a matter of time before some gross troglodyte makes an app for the glasses that will use AI to simulate what everyone would look like naked.
You know that will happen.
I assume it already has. Wasn’t this in the news already?
“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”
Isn’t this all public cameras?
Except that these cameras easily go anywhere, they aren’t just outside on the street.
Spas? Pools? Gyms Locker rooms? Find a nice spot sitting on a bench near a women’s dressing room at the mall that peeks in a bit? Set your glasses at your side and record while you look ahead at your phone, not freaking anyone out. They’re pervert enablers just as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.
as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.
CSAM is Child Sexual Assault Media, and Grok is not providing that, it’s providing Child Pornography.
You are comparing making non-consensual material with real people to generating material with no real people (based off real media, though, but that’s an implication with everything AI-generated).
If you spend some time understanding how AI image generation works, it’s essentially iterating on known images to make images that are probably also close to what it was rained on.
So if someone took some CSAM pictures printed up, and cut them up and made a collage, is that no longer CSAM? Of course not. It’s still CSAM. If someone took digital CSAM images and photoshoped the victims into different settings, it’s still CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material.
If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.
When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.
it’s essentially iterating on known images
No. It’s iterating on the common traits of known images compressed plus lots of randomization.
If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.
If you train a model on adult pornography and non-pornography with children and adults alike, it might be capable of generating plausible child pornography.
When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.
I’ve just told you how this is not true.
You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.
Point being that child pornography without real victims is something not contested here and has its own implications. You are trying to argue on something out of reach.
Do you honestly think people who make AI CP and want to see CP are training models on a ton of things to get them close, and then figuring out how to nudge it all just a bit further? Or do the people already in the CSAM world with access to CSAM that want to make CP just use the CSAM to train the model? I expect the second. Meaning there’s victims.
Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.
Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.
“It’s disgusting” is not quite the right argument for making something illegal.
And that “you’re defending” presupposition should honestly be your last claim in any group of people before being shown the door.
You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.
Quoting myself.
I “honestly think” each case is unique. Just like with everything else.
CP is harmful due to normalizing the thing, useful due to redirecting some of the energy people with that pathology have away from, you know, real children.
I know this is in the EU and I’m in the US but unfortunately to keep people honest you need to be able to record them in public. It’s a double edged sword yeah people will do perverted thing but there is no perfect solution.
Why do you need to be able to record people secretly? How does secretly recording a person keep them honest?
Think about it this way - if someone pulled out a knife and started stabbing people in public, should people be able to record it without asking the stabber for permission or not?
In public you have no expectation of privacy…… because you’re in public. Public and private are quite literally the opposite of each other.
should people be able to record it without asking the stabber for permission or not?
You can do this with a clearly visible camera.
You know, I think Goat and his ilk should be allowed to have their secret camera glasses, but only if they’re required by law to look like this.
A lot of public camera share up on a pole or building and most people do t know it’s there. Also how do you decide a camera is visible enough.
This is like asking how we decide that your cock isn’t visible through your pants. Learn to be modest, I don’t know.
So your advocating for police to inspect everyone’s shorts to make sure you can’t see through it enough.
I’m asking you to keep your cock in your pants.
It is so fucked that in modern life I have to waste my time with conservatives trying to endlessly relitigate exactly what about being a pedophile is bad, and with tech fetishists exactly why being an asshole in public is wrong.
Spaceballs, if you’re standing somewhere over the grand canyon with your phone out, obviously filming a family of three that does not want to be filmed, what the fuck are you doing? Do you find joy in being an unlikeable loser? Do you often think you just aren’t lonely enough?
I don’t know what it is you want me to say to you. In my ideal world, Facebook wouldn’t be allowed to make this product in the first place.
ban them
