Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 207 posts

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#71

Post by throwaway808081 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #27
arionmiles wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the biggest mobile use case where you don't want to be secretly recorded in public? This was a big concern with the original Google Glass.

The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed. But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own.

Do not expect this from the UK. That fight despite millions of signatures was batted down:

The UK is introducing passed legislation that citizens' digital IDs are owned by a Google or Apple smartphone.

The UK already have such laws active and in force that company directors must submit their information through an app available only from Google or Apple. It is clear 'digital IDs' will go the same way.

It's not about age or attribute verification. It's about tracking. Which Google excel at, the only alternative Apple and their opt-in.

Governments are quite happy making citizens have megacorps track their lives.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#72

Post by wongarsu »

circuit10 wrote: post #69
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".

You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?

The easier way of phrasing it is "you can't record in public, except in certain circumstances". Those certain circumstances just happen to encompass most things reasonable people want to do.

In Europe there is very much an expectation of privacy in public. But that expectation is not absolute, it competes with various other rights and public interests.

For example you can make street photography without blurred faces, because art trumps privacy in this instance. If you start making photos of individuals instead of areas then privacy wins out again and you need consent. A surveillance camera is not creating art, so it doesn't have that excuse going for it and needs a really good reason to be pointed at public areas (and "I fear someone's going to break into my private home" is generally not a good enough reason). And even if you can set up the surveillance camera, operating it requires complying with the GDPR, which has a lot to say on that topic

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#73

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #35
wowamit wrote: post #10

A much-needed project. Making yourself invisible to such privacy-invasive devices will be the need of the day. Of the two approaches you mentioned, blocking/jamming the specific wireless traffic would be pretty interesting, if possible.

> blocking/jamming the specific wireless traffic would be pretty interesting, if possible. And probably highly illegal.

At the end of the day, legality is what society settles as an acceptable way of running itself when all the stakeholders reluctantly agree or at least don't protest too much. Right now the 'costs' are sufficiently low that no one cares. As with most things, I suspect that there is a threshold ( though likely much higher than I have previously anticipated ) at which normal person would be unwilling to go as if anything changed.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#74

Post by keepamovin »

I look forward to the social media rage meltdown shorts that widespread adoption of this tech will precipitate. I think I'm kidding. I should be kidding. But I am curious...

Question for people who resonate with this: whenever someone is holding their cellphone at an angle that "could be inferred" to be imaging you, how do you feel and think?

I grew up on Earth before the cellpocalypse (phone zombies, etc), and went through a stage of noticing all these new 'cameras' everywhere, but then I stoppped attending to it.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#76

Post by tjpnz »

arionmiles wrote: post #19
dotancohen wrote: post #2

Interesting idea. It seems to me that most things which would need to be protected from hidden cameras would be stationary and not require the operator to mount the detectors on his body, but starting with mobile constraints is often helpful. I would like to draw attention to this gem of wit, easily the best I've seen in a long time: > I think the idea behind this approach is sound (actually it's light)

Isn't the biggest mobile use case where you don't want to be secretly recorded in public? This was a big concern with the original Google Glass.

Massive problem in Japan where the issue of sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. I suspect it's one of the reasons why Japan isn't on the list of supported countries for the Meta glasses. I hope it stays that way.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#77

Post by Lio »

hackingonempty wrote: post #61
littlestymaar wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed. But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own.

In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.

We have a similar law in the UK but it does depend on what you mean by public place.

In somewhere like a public toilet block, at least here in the UK, you have an expectation of privacy. If some creep in Meta glasses is filming you take a piss then they are breaking the law.

If you were on a public beach sun bathing then you probably don't have that expectation of privacy.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#79

Post by jorvi »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #70
circuit10 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?

Short answer is its complicated and will vary from member state to member state. My parental unit had a dispute with neighbor over where his camera is pointed and filed some motion to see what he does with it ( 'not making a database' part ), but the law was mostly toothless as the enforcement of it lacked. On the other hand, the dispute part of the real estate was handed real toot sweet, because everyone and their m…

> toot sweet

Not sure if intentional but just in case: the usual term is "tout de suite"

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#80

Post by unsupp0rted »

wowamit wrote: post #10

A much-needed project. Making yourself invisible to such privacy-invasive devices will be the need of the day. Of the two approaches you mentioned, blocking/jamming the specific wireless traffic would be pretty interesting, if possible.

I'll feel much safer when I'm visible only to every single ATM camera, traffic camera, random smartphone camera and doorbell camera, but not to people's glasses.
Post reply on HN