“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.
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.
You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?
“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.
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.
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.
All or nothing is right - nothing. No images depicting child sexual abuse. None. Not AI, not animated, not drawn, not real CSAM. WTF is even wrong with you?
Also true for spy cameras. And they don’t have the disadvantage of needing to be attached to a person to work.
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 …
In the US installation of cameras is actually pretty similar, but it’s a property thing more than a privacy thing.
For instance, Flock made a deal with a local HOA to install cameras, but the fence lines for the houses are at the property line, so where they’re wanting to place the cameras is in the public right-of-way. So they need to request a license to encroach into public property with private improvements.
However, cameras on private property facing public property are perfectly legal. And any private space visible from public property also has no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
Private property in public view not having an expectation of privacy sounds insane, but prohibiting recording of publicly-visible property essentially bans almost all outdoor recording of any kind because some private property is probably going to be somewhere in the frame.
If I take a selfie in the break room of my office (2nd floor), the background will include bits of dozens of private properties through the window.
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.
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.
How about dash cams?
I am not an expert. Dashcam legality differs across EU countries, but generally you are not allowed to share dashcam video.
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.
I think the mandatory shutter sound is a Japan-only thing.
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.
And private smart phones.
I honestly don’t understand why these glasses have become so mainstream
Part of me wants to go “well you’re on a public venue, what the hell did you expect?”
But anyone wearing Zuck Glasses should be shot at from the orbit from the EU Anti-Douchebaggotry Satellite, or something. That’s a special exception to public photography laws that I approve of!
as intended.
Who could have seen this coming? Who?
The worst thing about vulture capital targeting young manipulable tech bros for their get rich schemes is that has created a self perpetuating mono culture of spoiled rich grifters with stunted emotional maturity that never progressed beyond teenage boy. The have been allowed to dominate everything and are shaping the rage baited, meme ridden, dumbarse, ignorant dystopia. Lets just pull the plug on them and stop giving them money. Then they will all fuck off back to their mum’s basement to play video games and jerk off to their ai.
If only they had a “legitimate public-interest justification”, then they could feed it straight into Brussels’ Regional Informatics Center (BRIC), together with the thousands of public cameras from: police stations, the subway system, the port of Brussels, the fire and emergency medical assistance department, and the public service department responsible for traffic management, signals and tunnels; to be analyzed by video analytics tools (alerting operators upon “illegal parking or a large group of people, for example”, bookmarking video clips with movement, and where the “next step will be to integrate facial and number plate recognition”), as reported in their Genetec customer story…
Sie haben mich ins Gesicht gefilmt!
… and water is wet?
It’ll only be a matter of time before some gross troglodyte makes an app for the glasses that will use AI to simulate what everyone would look like naked.
You know that will happen.
I hope the AI lies and makes me look hot.
I assume it already has. Wasn’t this in the news already?
Who could have predicted this?
Just so people know, Belgium has one-party consent laws regarding the recording of conversations. I’m Belgian, see Art. 314bis in our penal code.
People keep bringing up that companies do it but at least companies want to exploit everyone equally in profitable ways. Companies aren’t human beings.
It’s a lot different compared to being preyed upon by another person who might want to harm you emotionally or physically.
I still find it interesting that people defend companies filming us the whole time. I’d be a lot happier if the response was “Yes, both are shitty. Let’s get rid of both”.
Both are shitty and we should get rid of both but I feel far more threatened by normal people. Does that make you feel any better?
I find that you feel less threatened by a corporation stunning.
I’m not convinced the distinction is necessary. It’s also wrong to say they don’t discriminate in who they choose to exploit for profit . Many many examples of double standards occurring in different regions by the same corporation. Behaving in one way in the global north, then the opposite in the global South for example. Exploitation of labour for one. Yeh the name of the game is profit at all costs including human if they get away with it. But the scale compared to what an individual bad actor can achieve (though real and scary for sure) is not worth comparing. Companies ARE made up of human beings. Hiding behind incorporations and limited liabilities does not always shelter corporate bad actors in regions with proper regulation. Yeh plenty to be cynical about but still, dont give these blood thirsty profit seekers any free pass on their behavior.
Who would’ve known this would happen? Everyone. Meta knew people would use it for the bad and they still decided to go on with it because money.
Hope there will be a way to prevent being recorded, like some tech that disables it or something.
People will always find ways to abuse technology.
There are lights that work on some cameras. I’m not sure which (infrared, I think prolly others). Search the web. They exist. But how are you gonna have that at all times everywhere? Easier to set the Meta HQ on fire. And that’s prolly not easy.
But how are you gonna have that at all times everywhere?
Someone made a hoodie with IR LED lights all around the face. I bet one could also build it into a necklace or something, but you’d need some sort of battery in your pocket to power them.
The real problem with these is that they are only really effective at night. In daylight, the blinding effect of the LEDs is minimized.
There are lights that work on some cameras. […] Search the web. They exist.
Or look in real life :-)
They are small and you can see them only from some specific angle. And not quite bright.
I think they are referring to camera-blinding IR lights
like some tech that disables it or something.
The word you’re looking for is “hammer”.
Baseball bats have better range.
Yeah, but nothing delivers the message better than calming grabbing the glasses, put them on the table in front of the glasshole, smash them with the hammer in a single confident blow and then placing the remnants back on their face. No words spoken, just a powerfull message delivered.
there are open source android apps that tell you when a meta rayban is nearby (using the phone’s ability to scan nearby bluetooth devices) which isn’t really good enough but it’s something i guess
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
if you’re a woman and the creep is a man, there’s always the option of pepper spray i guess, though then you will have to justify yourself somehow. i don’t think predominantly male chud cops will accept the reasoning of “i feel unsafe” from women, even if it’s true and valid.
as for impractical ideas, you can always carry around a 5W laser pointer and then try and fry the camera. of course does not work irl.
It’s a good thing they brought in “experts” to point this out.
I’ve always thought an EMP bomb would do some good. Snap worker bees out of their unhealthy relationship with working, disable vehicles, make people fulfil their needs physically
I figured that would kill pacemakers, but it might not. it’ll definitely kill electric wheelchairs and insulin fridges though.
kill everyone with a pacemaker, disable emergency systems, create traffic chaos
Damn, poor pacemaker dudes
Satan laughing spreads his wiiiiinngggssss
Years ago I tried calling out the normalization of anybody recording anybody in public without their knowledge or consent, and nobody cared because I was a man so they thought I didn’t deserve privacy. Now the headlines frame it as a women’s issue and suddenly everyone cares.
It’s not a gendered thing. It’s a privacy issue. People didn’t care when I raised concerns about it, and I’m not surprised that it’s biting people on the ass.
I still think it’s wrong, I just don’t find it surprising given people’s reactions whenever I raised concerns about it.
Also, ray-ban was stupid for allowing this because obviously nobody is going to buy their shit anymore. They had a distinctive design that now nobody is going to trust…
I can tell you the vast majority of people don’t care AND Raybans gets their name in the media more often so it’s marketing for them.
That’s putting a lot of weight in the “all publicity is good publicity” assumption
When nobody gives a fuck, it unfortunately holds true.
They’ve made crap sunglasses for a while now. I went to another company for my Aviators.
I hate to tell you, but whatever the other company you went to is, it’s almost certainly Luxottica, the same people who make Ray-Ban now.
I never said I liked raybans, but for a while over a decade ago they were all the rage with the hipster/indie crowd. People liked them, and their style was distinctive. So distinctive that even a cheap knockoff were called “raybans” for the shape of the frame and lenses.
Now no one in their right mind besides annoying tech bros are going to wear raybans, because anyone who sees them is going to assume they have cameras with facial recognition linked to meta’s servers.
