For the curious, it’s a link to a petition to ban these glasses. And while I absolutely hate these glasses and want legislation limiting them in at least some capacity, I don’t know that it will be successful - it is perfectly legal to photograph and record people in public (where there is “no expectation of privacy”).
The fact that there is no indication when they are in use is concerning, and something there should be laws around (although, thinking it through a bit more, there’s no indicator on, say, a cellphone). The petition mentions audio consent laws, which is another potential avenue for legislation, but not all states have two party consent (where everyone involved in a recorded conversation knows it’s being recorded).
In my humble opinion, as some dude writing a comment on the internet, is that the best chance for legislation would be around connecting personal data with the data recorded by the glasses. The scenario I’m thinking of is something like “hey slopbot, what are the names and addresses of everyone I’ve seen today”. It would then link the recording to other public images of you, which would likely provide a name, and then search those people finder sites and get all of that, as well as your previous addresses, family members, phone numbers, arrest history, and a list of fears.
My concern and reason for signing was, my kid in hs said a guy in class was using them, joking about use for a test. Then someone commented if he was uploading pics of his gf yet (popular girl I assume)and I really grew concerned. I totally get kids joking around, but at the point of under age limit, where do you draw the line is the device is always recording data? You could make moderators unintentionally view CP to a degree.
Yes, “public” doesn’t immediately scream privacy, however, when i walk around the city, NOBODY knows who I am. They won’t remember my face, don’t know my name, address, etc. So, there’s privacy from humans since we don’t all wear name tags with our phone number or address.
Overhearing a conversion is one thing, but recording it is a whole other issue! What about self incrimination? What about no consent from being recorded? I think of a show, Impractical Jokers, where they do a lot of stuff in public, and sometimes faces are blurred likely bc that person didn’t consent. Why would these social media stuff be any different?!
Idk, I think It’s awful, and worse so since Zuck pushed back on the lawsuit to get gov regulation in social media and age verification. To me, they’re buying politicians left and right, so they’ll get their way, but it’s “security theater” action basically. Especially data harvesting! Nothing more.
paranoid@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Risky click of the day!
For the curious, it’s a link to a petition to ban these glasses. And while I absolutely hate these glasses and want legislation limiting them in at least some capacity, I don’t know that it will be successful - it is perfectly legal to photograph and record people in public (where there is “no expectation of privacy”).
The fact that there is no indication when they are in use is concerning, and something there should be laws around (although, thinking it through a bit more, there’s no indicator on, say, a cellphone). The petition mentions audio consent laws, which is another potential avenue for legislation, but not all states have two party consent (where everyone involved in a recorded conversation knows it’s being recorded).
In my humble opinion, as some dude writing a comment on the internet, is that the best chance for legislation would be around connecting personal data with the data recorded by the glasses. The scenario I’m thinking of is something like “hey slopbot, what are the names and addresses of everyone I’ve seen today”. It would then link the recording to other public images of you, which would likely provide a name, and then search those people finder sites and get all of that, as well as your previous addresses, family members, phone numbers, arrest history, and a list of fears.
I hate all of this
mrnobody@reddthat.com 2 months ago
Haha yeah my bad no context.
My concern and reason for signing was, my kid in hs said a guy in class was using them, joking about use for a test. Then someone commented if he was uploading pics of his gf yet (popular girl I assume)and I really grew concerned. I totally get kids joking around, but at the point of under age limit, where do you draw the line is the device is always recording data? You could make moderators unintentionally view CP to a degree.
Yes, “public” doesn’t immediately scream privacy, however, when i walk around the city, NOBODY knows who I am. They won’t remember my face, don’t know my name, address, etc. So, there’s privacy from humans since we don’t all wear name tags with our phone number or address.
Overhearing a conversion is one thing, but recording it is a whole other issue! What about self incrimination? What about no consent from being recorded? I think of a show, Impractical Jokers, where they do a lot of stuff in public, and sometimes faces are blurred likely bc that person didn’t consent. Why would these social media stuff be any different?!
Idk, I think It’s awful, and worse so since Zuck pushed back on the lawsuit to get gov regulation in social media and age verification. To me, they’re buying politicians left and right, so they’ll get their way, but it’s “security theater” action basically. Especially data harvesting! Nothing more.