“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.
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.
If the company puts up a sign notifying that there are cameras on the premises then under Article 6.1(f) https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ it is allowed due to “legitimate interest” in deterring crime, securing premises, promoting general safety. This could be argued in a court that it fails the balancing test and that they could and should use more narrow means of collection but the way the courts have ruled I don’t think you’d win that case. Although to be fair the EU doesn’t use common law or case law for decisions so it could be up to the particular judge.
Going back to the article though, if a person with the glasses is filming for “purely personal or household activity,” the entire GDPR is exempt under Article 2(2)© https://gdpr-info.eu/art-2-gdpr/
GDPR regulates the data and the processing, not the act of filming or the expectation of privacy for an exempt usage. If they decide to sell this on a creeper site that is different but I wouldn’t look to GDPR to be the primary legal framework for this being explicitly illegal. The actions under original article would more directly be a violation of multiple other national laws like Germany’s “KunstURHG” and France’s “Droit à l’image”
Oh. So somebody in power is going to do something about it. I’m glad.
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)
he demanded $7,500 for an interview
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
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 per se illegal in Germany. 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.
Yeah, probably. But this doesn’t help much when the damage is already done, i.e. people have already commented bad things. And might even entice people (that might’ve downloaded it) to upload it again. Also, not sure whether this works as easy on e.g. TikTok.
I think that could fall under “Recht am eigenen Bild” (right to your own picture). It gives you the right to decide how images of you are used. If he profits off of photos/videos of her, she should have the right to sue him. It might also be illegal to publish the videos under GDPR law, especially in combination with more personal information like first name or city.
However, big festivals like the Oktoberfest often have a disclaimer that you agree to being filmed and your picture being published due to TV, press etc. being there. I don’t know how that would work.
right to your own picture
That’s pretty handy. Seems like that means you should therefore have the right for it not to be non-consensually sucked into the Meta AI training corpus (and you know it is) or sold to face recognition companies etc.
Just some evidence away from a massive class action lawsuit against Meta. Yes please, spank 'em hard.
I believe (not a lawyer or expert in that field) that this does not cover covert and targeted filming.
I’d argue it’s there to allow TV to make background shots and perform interviews without trouble.
Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles
Didnt that already get done to demonstrate the complete lack of privacy caused by this?
Checking…
Yeah this was what I was thinking of: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/rsac-meta-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-hacked-live-demo-2026/
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
That’s actually a very good point. Glasses such as these could indeed be used preventively as shitty behavior dash cams.
We need videos on tiktok and insta of hot women making brutal commentary of men in public, filmed on Meta glasses.
It’s the only way.
ban them
I am not a fan of this technology, but as far as I am aware there is not expectation of privacy when in public.
I am filmed constantly without my knowledge when in public in the UK.
According to google there are restrictions in the EU about publishing videos of people in public where you make them the focus of the video.
Germany is not “the EU”, even if they think they are.
Um… Ok thanks for sharing. Lol
But they are in the EU.
“in the EU, journalism is oppressed and genocides can’t be recognised without special consideration of which special people are doing the genocide” would be a useful sentence by your logic.
Psssst: Brussels is the capital of Belgium, you know that little speck that isn’t Germany.
There is a difference between surveillance by a democratically elected government and some random dude though.
I.e. in Germany homeowners are only allowed to film their own property. The cameras field of view may not reach into public space.
Also while photography in public spaces is generally allowed, people may demand the deletion of photos showing their face.
Surveillance by a government used to mean they had a random police officer follow you because it was worth the time. Now it’s on mass surveillence which is automated and fed into faulty AI systems flagging. A random dude with a camera doesn’t compare.
So to be clear, you are okay with being surveilled by the government?
So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
Ah yes, because there is no space between a surveillance state and “disbanding all forms of law enforcement”
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
You should take your own advice
Being against public surveillance doesn’t mean I want to abolish ALL forms of law enforcement/ crime prevention.
My concern (living the UK, a country with a disproportionate number of cctv) is that a society with extensive surveillance infrastructure creates the capability for abuse tomorrow. Once cameras, facial recognition systems, vehicle tracking, and data retention systems exist, future governments inherit those powers regardless of their good intent (or not as the case may be).
It’s already happening here. These systems are being used for “behaviour analysis” and tracking of lawful activities like protests and political activity. They his kind of mission creep is a slippery slope.
There is also the question of effectiveness. The UK has one of the highest densities of CCTV cameras in the democratic world, yet evidence on their impact varies significantly. There is little statistical reduction in inner city crime as a result beyond drug crime (20%), which in my opinion could be handled in a much more positive way.
I can’t speak for other countries.
So yeah, I am anti government surveillance.
Oh, so a short sentence can imply a more nuanced opinion on a subject? /s
Maybe keep that in mind next time before jumping to conclusions.
On the subject: If you want to enforce laws you have to have a way of knowing about violations. This happens via surveillance. Having CCTV is obviously surveillance but so is to show a driver’s license. Or compliance documentation. So the question is not whether or not you want government surveillance or not but how much.
So what? Your personal data is still being collected without your consent. It’s irrelevant whether or not the “expectation of privacy” demoralization applies.
I think there’s a difference between a world where someone could be recording you at any time and one where corporations are recording you 100% of the time, using masses of willing and paying citizens, in order to exploit you.
It’s cultural I guess. In France you have an expectation of privacy in public. Same for Belgium I guess.
I don’t think this is correct.
Public photography is generally acceptable in law in France until you publish the images. You risk civil or data protection claims if you publish identifiable images without a lawful basis or consent.
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.
I’ve always thought an EMP bomb would do some good. Snap worker bees out of their unhealthy relationship with working, disable vehicles, make people fulfil their needs physically
kill everyone with a pacemaker, disable emergency systems, create traffic chaos
I figured that would kill pacemakers, but it might not. it’ll definitely kill electric wheelchairs and insulin fridges though.
there are open source android apps that tell you when a meta rayban is nearby (using the phone’s ability to scan nearby bluetooth devices) which isn’t really good enough but it’s something i guess
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
if you’re a woman and the creep is a man, there’s always the option of pepper spray i guess, though then you will have to justify yourself somehow. i don’t think predominantly male chud cops will accept the reasoning of “i feel unsafe” from women, even if it’s true and valid.
as for impractical ideas, you can always carry around a 5W laser pointer and then try and fry the camera. of course does not work irl.
People will always find ways to abuse technology.
Years ago I tried calling out the normalization of anybody recording anybody in public without their knowledge or consent, and nobody cared because I was a man so they thought I didn’t deserve privacy. Now the headlines frame it as a women’s issue and suddenly everyone cares.
It’s not a gendered thing. It’s a privacy issue. People didn’t care when I raised concerns about it, and I’m not surprised that it’s biting people on the ass.
I still think it’s wrong, I just don’t find it surprising given people’s reactions whenever I raised concerns about it.
Also, ray-ban was stupid for allowing this because obviously nobody is going to buy their shit anymore. They had a distinctive design that now nobody is going to trust…
They’ve made crap sunglasses for a while now. I went to another company for my Aviators.
I never said I liked raybans, but for a while over a decade ago they were all the rage with the hipster/indie crowd. People liked them, and their style was distinctive. So distinctive that even a cheap knockoff were called “raybans” for the shape of the frame and lenses.
Now no one in their right mind besides annoying tech bros are going to wear raybans, because anyone who sees them is going to assume they have cameras with facial recognition linked to meta’s servers.
I hate to tell you, but whatever the other company you went to is, it’s almost certainly Luxottica, the same people who make Ray-Ban now.
I can tell you the vast majority of people don’t care AND Raybans gets their name in the media more often so it’s marketing for them.
That’s putting a lot of weight in the “all publicity is good publicity” assumption
like some tech that disables it or something.
The word you’re looking for is “hammer”.
Baseball bats have better range.
Yeah, but nothing delivers the message better than calming grabbing the glasses, put them on the table in front of the glasshole, smash them with the hammer in a single confident blow and then placing the remnants back on their face. No words spoken, just a powerfull message delivered.
There are lights that work on some cameras. I’m not sure which (infrared, I think prolly others). Search the web. They exist. But how are you gonna have that at all times everywhere? Easier to set the Meta HQ on fire. And that’s prolly not easy.
There are lights that work on some cameras. […] Search the web. They exist.
Or look in real life :-)
They are small and you can see them only from some specific angle. And not quite bright.
I think they are referring to camera-blinding IR lights
But how are you gonna have that at all times everywhere?
Someone made a hoodie with IR LED lights all around the face. I bet one could also build it into a necklace or something, but you’d need some sort of battery in your pocket to power them.
The real problem with these is that they are only really effective at night. In daylight, the blinding effect of the LEDs is minimized.
Ban them.
Ray Ban them.
What a mess!
Everything is surveillance nowadays. No one should be surprised by this. They should be aware that it is happening because this is normal for the current fucked-up world that we inhabit.
Is it any wonder why the youth of today are displaying various forms of mental illness, not knowing a single moment of privacy in their entire lives?
I’m glad I grew up before social media and everyone having cameras everywhere. This shit is not good for mental health.
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.
Pretty sure that’s a man in the image.
Finally someone who can see ;-)
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.
when the man’s team loses a sports game
I’ve never understood why some so many people are so goddamn obsessed with sports teams. Even highly educated otherwise bright people. I enjoy playing soccer, or many other sports, but I don’t care in the slightest which team wins or loses in these big competitions. Though, as a former LoL player I watched tournaments too and had a preference for underdogs, and competed myself in a CS 1.6 clan, but at the end of the day sportsmanship and witnessing satisfying gameplay is what mattered the most, regardless of which team.
Even for computer games, I hear stories of men smashing things up when they lose a game or have a certain interaction with another player. There’s an impotent rage lying in wait in many of us, and no man wants to confront their own sense of impotence.
Those probably destroy things in rage at more occasions than just games.
Sincerely, if you can’t see
Why wouldn’t I? It’s a whole different question.
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 said it joking once but we’ll get there at this rate: we need to develop a portable EMP emitter. Carry your devices in a faraday bag and whenever you see someone with suspicious glasses, just shot the EMP and fuck the glasshole and their privacy nightmarish glasses.
Who could have predicted this?
Just so people know, Belgium has one-party consent laws regarding the recording of conversations. I’m Belgian, see Art. 314bis in our penal code.
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
Right? It’s a collab between Meta and Ray-Ban ffs, what kind of people did they think were going to be buying them?
Glassholes.
