“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.
The grandson of the owner of the company I work for, well, I had seen him use Chinese smart glasses, just wearing him, and he asked “how did you know”.
Does anyone have a Cyberpunk glitch-face counter we can start wearing to avoid facial recording?
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 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
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.
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.
he demanded $7,500 for an interview
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
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/
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.
In Belgium people do have an expectation of privacy in public, what they did is straight up illegal under Belgian law. If they want to film or photograph a person (not as an accidental passerby, but as the subject as was the case here), then they need to get consent from that person. If they want to share that footage online, then they need consent for that as well.
Doesn’t seem that straight forward from the article. It says you “generally” need consent, and that was said in regard to “filming and publishing”. What about just filming? The “generally” makes me think that this isn’t breaking any laws unless they publish it without consent.
The generally refers to the exceptions where no consent is needed. Had the ladies been committing a crime, then no consent was needed to start filming. Had they been filming some landmark and the ladies walked through the frame, again no consent needed from them. But generally speaking, consent is required before you may start filming a stranger.
In the US that won’t pass muster, laws aren’t the same everywhere.
Looking at US laws it appears you’re wrong. Unless you’re in a bathroom or somewhere where privacy is expected, recording in public places without permission is completely legal.
My intent was to say that it wouldn’t break US law, "possibly breaching EU law.” wouldn’t work in the is
That’s why I specifically stated law isn’t the same everywhere. the point being that OP is saying it’s fine because it’s in public, but that’s US law, not all public recording is legal the world over.
But you said it won’t pass muster in the US? I’m saying it does. Most of Europe also allows recording in public. Which countries don’t?
And everyone else, but the rest of us don’t matter, I guess?
What are you even trying to say?
No one has an expectation of privacy when they’re out in public. It’s right there in the name - public. The opposite of private.
I disagree. If you have thousands of these and some program live cross-matching and correlating everything about everyone, it is a different problem from “being seen in public” or even traditional street cameras. Before, they could investigate a limited number of people, so they had to focus on suspects and a case. Now they just mass trawl everyone’s lives simultaneously.
Who is “they” here?
The fact is that if you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy………because you’re in public.
Depends. You have image rights. Those may not be relevant to people taking pictures…but they are relevant to databases collecting info on you.
You don’t own “image rights” of yourself.
Depends on the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights in shithole countries you don’t.
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.
“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?
Yes, in a way.
Privacy laws are a little complicated but not that bad.
In this case Europe sees filming in public, while concealing the fact, not legal.
Conversely, if you are filming and it is very clear that you are(ie a camera, film crew etc) and you are not singling out anyone who doesnt want to be recorded then it is perfectly legal to film in public.
Do you see how it works now and how these Ray-Ban glasses go against this?
Its legal to record in public as long as you respect the privacy of others. Of course they can always be a background figure if they are not focused on but making them the star of your production without consent makes it very illegal and immoral in my opinion.
Have a great day!
I work in the field, in Europe, and can confirm this is about right. There are also situations where you start needing permits to film, either because it’s private property or even public property if you start having to put down a lot of equipment and crew.
I think the difference that most people overlook, is that she doesn’t know. It’s a “hidden” camera. If they were holding up a phone or dslr, people would know to get out of the shot if they didn’t want to be filmed. Plus, it’s Europe, they’re probably better about privacy.
100% correct.
Also, Quebec (not sure about anywhere else in the world) has the same kind of laws, so not just Europe.
Except the camera outside every shop and on every streetcorner, yeah!
Yes, and many of those are illegal as well. Many home cameras (as part of video doorbells) are pointed at public streets, and they are usually illegal as well.
How about dash cams?
Most countries don’t have laws against recording public areas though, and generally as long as it’s not for commercial use even the ones that do haven’t set a precedent against it. The problem is when people are being recorded in compromising situations and in those cases it’s usually illegal.
Those aren’t looking up her skirt, down her shirt, at your crotch or seeing your plumber’s crack, just for that purpose.
I see what you’re driving at, but CCTV cameras are recording 24/7 on the offchance that the footage is needed, just in case, by a body who is often regulated and monitored. Whereas the concern with the glasses is that they are operated by an otherwise anonymous individual and the recording is more likely to be targeted rather than a broadly cast net.
The very reason the first camera phones had to be re-engineered to add mandatory shutter sounds to them.
The very reason the first camera phones had to be re-engineered to add mandatory shutter sounds to them.
What?!?
Think about what you are saying for the love of all existence.
Volume buttons have always existed on cell phones. Your statement makes no sense.
Have a good day.
Cell phones in Japan must have an audible shutter sound. Pretty sure turning down the volume isn’t enough to silence it.
I think the mandatory shutter sound is a Japan-only thing.
And private smart phones.
Recording camera in public sources are subject to the EU law. You can’t install then without authorization and their use is reglemented.
I don’t know if it’s there case in all the EU but for example in France people need to be informed by a sign of a camera is recording the area, they can’t record the entrance of private houses …
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.
Also true for spy cameras. And they don’t have the disadvantage of needing to be attached to a person to work.
Thats already illegal we don’t need more laws for that, just enforcement.
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 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.
Sie haben mich ins Gesicht gefilmt!
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.
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
Glassholes.
Right? It’s a collab between Meta and Ray-Ban ffs, what kind of people did they think were going to be buying them?
Just punch people wearing Ray-Bans on sight. Really bend those frames.
They are so many fuckers around, because they can get away with it.
When I was younger, it was more “fuck around, find out”.
There are too much " find out" missing in our current days…
The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a world where Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams come true.
If only people had said “no thanks, I’m good” when Fakebook rolled out. Of course something else equally as shitty would have probably taken its place.
But you know, back then it was “supposed” to about making connections with friends and family. Although the true original were just to meet college aged chicks
it was to rate college aged chicks.
Hindsight is 20/20 but only few, if any, expected how big of a giant piece of shit Facebook will become and especially its founder. Most people thought it is just another fad, and expected it will go the way of most other social media sites at the time such as Friendster, Bebo and MySpace.
It’s kind of like survivorship bias: The ones who rise to the very top must be the most ruthless and biggest pieces of shit. It’s like taking 20 trials to rise to the top, and to succeed each trial fucking others over and only concerning yourself with your advancement is beneficial. It only leaves the worst.
It certainly paves the way for kakistocracy
Zuck was always a giant piece of shit. On discussing the information its first users’ willingness to give personal details to The Face Book back at (?) Harvard (?) he said: “… They just send it to me. They trust me. The dumb fucks.”
He was mask-off from the beginning. We’re (society, not addressing anyone individually) just really blind to threats when distracted by shiny, noisy crap.
Most people would not have known about what Zuck in the earlier years of Facebook. Heck, even to this day, either most people still don’t know or don’t care. Facebook is still extremely popular in developing countries because the site is free regardless of whether or not you have a mobile internet data. But they don’t realise they are being manipulated by the social media to give them free information and to vote a certain way in elections that is against their own interest.
If only people would just stop fucking using it. It’s still a choice to use it.
I quit facebook about 15 years ago. I still have people trying to share facebook links with me or suggesting I make a fake account for whatever bullshit reason they think I need one. Even reasonable and well-educated people in my life don’t seem to understand the purpose of not having facebook is not having fucking facebook.
