It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".
Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.
I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.
There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.
Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.
Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.
Consent or not, most laws allows that anyway. This is the publication that is usually limited and usually only in cases where people can be too easily recognized. These exceptions are a bit vague on purpose so that it is still easy to publish stuff without having to ask every single person you came accross in the street for their consent.
But the world has changed. For instance last year I recognized my father in a travel video published by a youtuber from another continent. You would have thought that it is no big deal if a latin american can record video of people in europe because its target audience is unlikely to recognize anyone. Yet here we are, people nowadays can have relatives, friends and or former colleagues spread all over the globe, or consuming content published online but targetting a public from very far away.
Until now it wasn't a big deal as it was still easy to spot someone recording a video from quite far and move away or hide your face. And we would rely on good old shame and citizen vigilance to spot people recording kids for example. "spy cameras" used to have such a crappy quality you couldn't do anything too bad without getting close and in good light. Now it becomes a bit complicated with these glasses.
In the US, you have consented. It is settled law that there is no expectation of privacy while you’re in public. This is how paparazzi, among others, can work their trade. If consent were required, every star would ban photos of themselves in public. They can’t and nor can you.
It’s easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someone’s looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.
People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.
Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.
Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.
Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhere—in fact that’s how life works in general.
Just because we haven’t yet beaten ALPRs doesn’t mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.
One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.
Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.
If you don’t like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. It’s like telling doctors not to bother because everyone’s eventually going to die anyway.
I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.
I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.
Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.
2.4GHz is already incredibly crowded and prone to interference (in urban environments). I remember once picking up emissions on a Bluetooth headset from a leaky microwave oven.
You can replace an inefficient (turns power into heat) antenna with a more efficient antenna which will then radiate more.
And some frequencies are regulated by effective radiated power, where they basically care about the strength of the signal in the strongest location, so a more directional antenna could push you over the limit.
And lastly ideally Qualcomm or Broadcom SoC and not mediatek
reply