201–210 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So should smartphone cameras be illegal as well? Or cameras of every kind?
Depends, would you walk around recording everyone with your phone out right onto their faces without their consent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a TikToker, absolutely
I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1]. He was definitely filming everyone without our consent. [1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/06/1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That genie's out of the bottle, couple cheap cameras with cheap AI recognition and tracking, and every network getting pwned by somebody the result is, public spaces become obscenely public. The worst is private spaces, like when a technician or tradesman comes to one's house to do work wearing smart glasses. If they're Rx, what do you do? Refuse service? live with the broken pipe/modem? No opinion on the decision fr…
> That genie's out of the bottle [...] public spaces become obscenely public A bit "meta" here, but this was never about surrendering to advancing capability , humans have been capable of eavesdropping ever since eaves were invented, people could bring hidden microphones and cameras in "private" spaces for decades, etc. The "reasonable expectation" doesn't come from our fears of the worst, or else it would be meaning…
Serious question: what will happen when people start getting implants? They’ll probably require some sort of off mode, but not sure how that would be enforced.
It's already impossible to stop someone from recording if they are really determined. Pen cameras, button cameras and all sorts of miniature devices exist and can be snuck through very easily. You enforce the restriction by prosecuting people who upload the footage.
I'm no expert, but I believe national security SCIFs use technology that blocks recording.
Once the glasses become popular, so will jammers. By jammers I mean audio and visual disruption to make the recordings unusable, or nearly so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be no safety reason to require audio. The only reason for audio is later use for prosecution. It's not just that they don't want to piss off the lawyers. If they don't provide a private location, then they may be forced to take continuances and recesses so those conversations can happen elsewhere as a condition of not infringing on the constitutional right to effective counsel.
Might be quicker to detect disturbances using audio too rather than video only, think of ShotSpotter. Sounds made up though and probably either a way to spy or chill speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume the sheriff would be totally fine with putting up signs in that area saying "audio and video recording in progress" then right? That would somewhat address the issue, and should be entirely uncontroversial to both sides.
It's so fundamentally terrifying that someone would consider that "totally fine". Prosecutors will take breaks in their offices within the same building while the defense has to leave the building in order to have a private conversation, that sounds totally fair and reasonable.
Nobody considered that when the laws were written but we live in a world of billion dollar drug cartels.
The vibe around smart glasses is so weird: Governments and businesses can record in public, which is right and proper, but if an individual person records what they see, that's wrong and creepy.
A fixed security camera is visible, scoped to a specific area, and (in theory) governed by policy, retention limits, audits, etc. Smart glasses are much harder to notice and can record anywhere
Glassholes are new. We can tell when someone is trying to film eleven year olds in a public swimming pool but this is the new frontier.
Once the glasses become popular, so will jammers. By jammers I mean audio and visual disruption to make the recordings unusable, or nearly so.
What are you jamming here? The wireless connection? Wouldn't the recorded data just be cached on device until out of the jamming range?