If you’re holding a camera all good I can see you’re definitely trying to record me. If you’re trying to be slick and record me with your secret little spy glasses I literally couldn’t care less about what’s legal or not.
No, it’s not the same indeed. If something is “correct” is a (shared) opinion. Another person might disagree and consider other things correct. That’s what freedom looks like.
That’s why people are trying to change the law to make these glasses illegal. They are willing to risk the consequences until that point.
You only care about the law protecting you, and are taking advantage of the law not yet protecting others. If you abuse the law, others see no issue with breaking the law to stop you.
There are cameras everywhere anyways. Don’t act a way you want on film if you’re outside your home, otherwise there’s a chance it’s being recorded and there’s nothing you can do about it 🤷
Consider the hammer analogy, which says that my right to swing a hammer ends where you begin.
My right to privacy doesn’t end simply because I venture out into public. If I decide to go out, and someone little secret camera sees and records me, and creates a file to the effect of, “This is gigastasio and he was seen crossing 5th and Spruce at 11:32 am today, here’s who he was with and everything known about them available on social media, news reports, and more,” freely accessible to another private citizen with no need for that information, that’s antithetical to the value of respecting and protecting our privacy.
You would not walk up to me, ask my name, and begin searching me while I stood there and watched. If you did I would either ignore you or lie to you, which would be the proper response. If that behavior is wrong, so is secretly collecting someone’s identity, whereabouts, associations and other info. And there are very sound counterarguments against the “nothing to hide” stance that can be better articulated by others than I can do at the moment.
Rather than taking the attitude of “there’s already public surveillance, so more is okay,” I would instead say there’s already surveillance, so resist the temptation to add even more and work to dismantle what currently exists.
I think it would be necessary. And if anyone has a problem with it let them bring legal challenges. In fact, let’s run arguments for and against identity and information harvesting by private citizens against private citizens through the courts and see what shakes out. Seeing as how your position is based on what’s legal as opposed to what’s ethical, I bet you’d be in favor of that.
An important distinction that I don’t want to get lost in our discussion is that this isn’t just a camera. It’s a device designed to provide a user with someone’s identity and, by extension, available information about the target without their knowledge or consent. I can instantly think of half a dozen ways that can be used to bring harm to others, some of which meet the legal standards for harassment.
So taking someone’s picture, and using facial recognition to acquire their identity and entire digital footprint for unspecified use by another private citizen, all in secret…line seems awfully clear to me.
No you won’t. I’m might set up a camera on the sidewalk outside your house tomorrow, and there’s nothing you could do about it. Nothing. You’re not in charge.
Neither are you bro you keep thinking of gotchas but like so what? Damn lumen outsmarted me guess I’ll let them creep on me instead of stopping them. 💀
Well if you set up a camera, it’s probably not the smart glasses, and thus not problematic. Someone could break your glasses, and even if they fail, they could chase you away, so you couldn’t record what you wanted to, and others would know to avoid you.
Like it or not, legal or not, people would attempt to stop you, and this whole thread is people explaining exactly why they’d do that.
You act as if this is the first social issue you’ve discussed with a group, and that’s ok, but remember that you entered into a discussion in progress, and it’s up to you to catch up with the discourse.
You think so? You think you have a right to install your camera on public property?
There are usually peeping tom laws that prevent this kind of thing, and it’s certainly cause for a civil harassment case if the person you’re spying on knows about it.
The real question is: why do you want the ability to film someone’s house like that unless you’re a creeper?
What an interesting opinion you have, that as long as you break no laws, everyone who doesn’t like your behaviour should be intimidated into not leaving the house for work, medicine, or food.
The only thing I’m saying is that legal things are legal, even if the consequences might make certain people feel bad. We can all use the public space however we like. I can film secretly on the sidewalk, and you can go grocery shopping, and the next person could shout about his religious beliefs, while the next person could be skateboarding.
Right like my opinion is that we should socially discourage antisocial creepy behavior such as recording others without their consent, in public or otherwise.
If you’re actually puzzled, then you’re a moron. The vast majority of people clearly strongly dislike these things and you’re everywhere in this thread defending them. Are you being paid for your services or do you just love the surveillance state that much?
I love my freedoms. And I understand that in order to have your own freedoms, you have to respect other people having theirs. You all seem to think more in line with “freedom for me, but not for thee”. And so far, no one has produced any arguments outside of something based on their feelings.
All laws are, in some way, based on feelings that are explainable. We feel murder is bad, so we write laws against it. In places where murder is in some way legal, people fight murderers because they feel they must
We feel surveillance is bad, and we are explaining why we feel that way and why those feelings are valid. We are taking away from you what you see as a right, but we see as a privilege.
Just because you don’t have a legal right not to be filmed without your consent doesn’t mean that you don’t have a moral right not to be filmed without your consent
By “doesn’t exist” you mean that you don’t recognize them, rights only exist because people say so. Recognizing moral rights as more important than legal rights is a popular social value, and happens all around you everyday. It’s not something you can halt or debate, you have to find a way to accept how people are.
Interesting. Where I live, no such ban exists. Sure it could be a good idea to ban some public filming, but where do you draw the line? I think that’s pretty much impossible to do right.
Up-skirt filming is a good example of an easy line to draw. No filming at public beaches, gyms, pools, changing rooms are also hypothetically easy lines to draw. This isn’t really that complicated.
People want to be able to go out into the world without being filmed. That was the case for thousands of years. It is not unreasonable to expect limits on recording in public.
Now one of the worst organizations on earth (meta) wants to record everyone and everything for their private benefit. People are mad.
It’s extremely difficult to draw a line, though. To determine where to draw that line. Freedom of the press is important, don’t you agree? Well, what do we consider legitimate journalistic purposes? I do not think the government should draw a line at all on this. Filming could be part of a journalistic effort. Or not. The government can’t determine that. And until there’s a foolproof way to filter out ‘bad actor’ filming and ‘good’ filming, it will be very much slippery slope territory to impose any restrictions on filming in public whatsoever.
Please start live streaming your actions in public for us all to watch. You don’t have any abusive exes or family members, I hope. Also I trust you’ve never said anything to irritate right wing fanatics. Maybe if it’s a little more personal, you’d have a little more empathy.
Also, of note, not all limits are from the law. Peer pressure and private businesses saying “You can’t do that in here” are also tools.
Did you know that on the public beach, I can look at your wife’s butt, or your kids, with my very own eyes? Why does recording it cause you any greater harm than looking with my eyes?
Is it because it involves technology? Is it because it implies I’m too interested in what I see, so it makes you feel uncomfortable?
Yes because it involves technology, no not because it implies interest. It’s wrong because technology lets you share what you see with others. People trust you to see butts on a beach because they know who exactly can see the butts, andcan personally deal with creeps. I wouldn’t go to a beach where my butt could end up online without my being abletostop it (and I mean a focused shot, not a general beach picture).
The only thing you’ve said is wrong is the sharing of pictures/video.
So, the problem is not the glasses, it’s not taking video with them, it’s sharing that video with others. So maybe chill out about the stuff that isn’t the actual problem.
(Not that the act of sharing is actually going to harm the subject of the video, anyway)
Some countries have the legal principle of “right to one’s own image”, and maybe you want that. But everyone here advocating violence seem to have forgotten how to do democracy.
But everyone here advocating violence seem to have forgotten how to do democracy.
A lot of changes in democracies happen following violent events. Violence is unfortunately one of the very few effective method to raise attention on an issue.
If you believe that the ends always justify the means you have no argument against political violence used against you except that the ends are wrong… so we’re back to square one, and fighting in the street over every political disagreement. Congrats.
If you use a Meta smartglass, the “sharing” is out of your control.
It’s actually going to be interesting when a smartglass wearer has to explain a judge they didn’t know it was recording and uploading pictures or videos.
Explaining to the judge in what court case? When some of the keyboard warriors here are in the dock for assault? Or for some imagined crime of “recording a video of me”?
I actually don’t think Meta breaks gdpr that badly, and I know for a fact they don’t upload video all the time, because it’s not physically possible.
It’s a Meta product so the vibes are bad, so everything to do with it is wrong and evil. Anyone who says anything contrary to “this is wrong and evil” is wrong and evil.
Preventing unauthorised filming in private has been a problem for a long time now, that existed before Meta Ray-Ben did.
If you’re on a public beach, I can film your wife’s butt and your kid and choose to do so either secretly or visibly. All at my sole discretion. I know that this comment will be downvoted to oblivion because people don’t like this fact, but it’s a fact nonetheless.
It’s also a fact that people can stop you, illegal or not, whether you like it or not. You also act as though a visible, private camera the same as a slealth camera that uploads to a cloud. They are different, and so people will feel different about them.
You seem more focused on trying to get away with stealth recording than if it’s correct to do so, especially when someone argues about the ethics.
In Brazil, and I suppose most EU countries, every individual has the rights to their own image, as in, I cannot take a picture of you, or one that clearly identifies you, without your consent. If I use it for commercial purposes, I may also need to reach an agreement of some sort with you. Save a few exceptions, such as people walking on the background of a live reporter, a person has rights to ask for their likeness to be removed or blurred.
This is so stupid. In public, in most countries you have no right not to be filmed. And you certainly can’t destroy someone else’s device.
I know this post is a joke. But whoever actually has a problem with being filmed in public should stay home.
Edit: four people have threatened physical violence against me in reaction to my opinion. Lemmy has a sick culture.
If you’re holding a camera all good I can see you’re definitely trying to record me. If you’re trying to be slick and record me with your secret little spy glasses I literally couldn’t care less about what’s legal or not.
Plus, the law doesn’t concern your feelings. It doesn’t matter if you like something or not, if it’s legal, it’s legal.
And legal is not the same as correct
No, it’s not the same indeed. If something is “correct” is a (shared) opinion. Another person might disagree and consider other things correct. That’s what freedom looks like.
That’s why people are trying to change the law to make these glasses illegal. They are willing to risk the consequences until that point.
You only care about the law protecting you, and are taking advantage of the law not yet protecting others. If you abuse the law, others see no issue with breaking the law to stop you.
There are cameras everywhere anyways. Don’t act a way you want on film if you’re outside your home, otherwise there’s a chance it’s being recorded and there’s nothing you can do about it 🤷
Consider the hammer analogy, which says that my right to swing a hammer ends where you begin.
My right to privacy doesn’t end simply because I venture out into public. If I decide to go out, and someone little secret camera sees and records me, and creates a file to the effect of, “This is gigastasio and he was seen crossing 5th and Spruce at 11:32 am today, here’s who he was with and everything known about them available on social media, news reports, and more,” freely accessible to another private citizen with no need for that information, that’s antithetical to the value of respecting and protecting our privacy.
You would not walk up to me, ask my name, and begin searching me while I stood there and watched. If you did I would either ignore you or lie to you, which would be the proper response. If that behavior is wrong, so is secretly collecting someone’s identity, whereabouts, associations and other info. And there are very sound counterarguments against the “nothing to hide” stance that can be better articulated by others than I can do at the moment.
Rather than taking the attitude of “there’s already public surveillance, so more is okay,” I would instead say there’s already surveillance, so resist the temptation to add even more and work to dismantle what currently exists.
I don’t like surveillance either, but as it currently stands, you have no expectation of privacy in public.
So as long as there are surveillance cameras, it would be stupid to forbid any civilian filming in public.
I think it would be necessary. And if anyone has a problem with it let them bring legal challenges. In fact, let’s run arguments for and against identity and information harvesting by private citizens against private citizens through the courts and see what shakes out. Seeing as how your position is based on what’s legal as opposed to what’s ethical, I bet you’d be in favor of that.
It’s not strange to want a line drawn somewhere regarding public photography. But I just don’t see how that line ever can be drawn in a fair way.
An important distinction that I don’t want to get lost in our discussion is that this isn’t just a camera. It’s a device designed to provide a user with someone’s identity and, by extension, available information about the target without their knowledge or consent. I can instantly think of half a dozen ways that can be used to bring harm to others, some of which meet the legal standards for harassment.
So taking someone’s picture, and using facial recognition to acquire their identity and entire digital footprint for unspecified use by another private citizen, all in secret…line seems awfully clear to me.
Might not be anything I can do about you recording me but I can act in a way that will make you think twice about recording the next person
Yeah? What will you do exactly?
No you won’t. I’m might set up a camera on the sidewalk outside your house tomorrow, and there’s nothing you could do about it. Nothing. You’re not in charge.
Neither are you bro you keep thinking of gotchas but like so what? Damn lumen outsmarted me guess I’ll let them creep on me instead of stopping them. 💀
Well if you set up a camera, it’s probably not the smart glasses, and thus not problematic. Someone could break your glasses, and even if they fail, they could chase you away, so you couldn’t record what you wanted to, and others would know to avoid you.
Like it or not, legal or not, people would attempt to stop you, and this whole thread is people explaining exactly why they’d do that.
You act as if this is the first social issue you’ve discussed with a group, and that’s ok, but remember that you entered into a discussion in progress, and it’s up to you to catch up with the discourse.
You think so? You think you have a right to install your camera on public property?
There are usually peeping tom laws that prevent this kind of thing, and it’s certainly cause for a civil harassment case if the person you’re spying on knows about it.
The real question is: why do you want the ability to film someone’s house like that unless you’re a creeper?
Not install, but hold. Yes, I do have that right where I live.
Cool, I’d hate to live in a place where you can creep on your neighbors.
I bet it’s a pervert’s dream.
It’s like you’re asking to be punched.
Actually, you know what, you are so bad at advocating for your side of things, I’ve decided I’m on your side. Please, keep posting this.
What an interesting opinion you have, that as long as you break no laws, everyone who doesn’t like your behaviour should be intimidated into not leaving the house for work, medicine, or food.
The only thing I’m saying is that legal things are legal, even if the consequences might make certain people feel bad. We can all use the public space however we like. I can film secretly on the sidewalk, and you can go grocery shopping, and the next person could shout about his religious beliefs, while the next person could be skateboarding.
Well I think you should have more opinions on right and wrong than just what the law tells you to think.
Sure I do. But everyone’s entitled to their own opinions.
Right like my opinion is that we should socially discourage antisocial creepy behavior such as recording others without their consent, in public or otherwise.
Nice opinion
Do you use smart glasses? Because you shouldn’t.
If you’re actually puzzled, then you’re a moron. The vast majority of people clearly strongly dislike these things and you’re everywhere in this thread defending them. Are you being paid for your services or do you just love the surveillance state that much?
I love my freedoms. And I understand that in order to have your own freedoms, you have to respect other people having theirs. You all seem to think more in line with “freedom for me, but not for thee”. And so far, no one has produced any arguments outside of something based on their feelings.
Yes, they have.
God, I love pretending that your opponents haven’t said things they clearly have because they’re all hidden behind the “see more replies” button.
All laws are, in some way, based on feelings that are explainable. We feel murder is bad, so we write laws against it. In places where murder is in some way legal, people fight murderers because they feel they must
We feel surveillance is bad, and we are explaining why we feel that way and why those feelings are valid. We are taking away from you what you see as a right, but we see as a privilege.
Just because you don’t have a legal right not to be filmed without your consent doesn’t mean that you don’t have a moral right not to be filmed without your consent
Moral rights don’t exist. And it’s a good thing that they don’t, because everyone has different ethics.
By “doesn’t exist” you mean that you don’t recognize them, rights only exist because people say so. Recognizing moral rights as more important than legal rights is a popular social value, and happens all around you everyday. It’s not something you can halt or debate, you have to find a way to accept how people are.
I don’t know where you live, but all kinds of filming in public is not in fact legal (and either way it shouldn’t be): https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/japan-ban-upskirting-sex-crime-reforms-peeping-tom-voyeurism-laws-12537902.html
Interesting. Where I live, no such ban exists. Sure it could be a good idea to ban some public filming, but where do you draw the line? I think that’s pretty much impossible to do right.
Up-skirt filming is a good example of an easy line to draw. No filming at public beaches, gyms, pools, changing rooms are also hypothetically easy lines to draw. This isn’t really that complicated.
And what if a whale washes up on the shore? Can the local news agency film that?
lol yes, there won’t be any half naked people next to the smelly dying whale. Stop trolling
I’m not trolling. You just made it illegal to film on beaches!
I’m just illustrating that you can’t draw a line here.
Illegal to film people. If there are a few people on the beach next to the whale just ask for consent. Blocking you now.
Something being legal doesn’t make it good.
People want to be able to go out into the world without being filmed. That was the case for thousands of years. It is not unreasonable to expect limits on recording in public.
Now one of the worst organizations on earth (meta) wants to record everyone and everything for their private benefit. People are mad.
It’s extremely difficult to draw a line, though. To determine where to draw that line. Freedom of the press is important, don’t you agree? Well, what do we consider legitimate journalistic purposes? I do not think the government should draw a line at all on this. Filming could be part of a journalistic effort. Or not. The government can’t determine that. And until there’s a foolproof way to filter out ‘bad actor’ filming and ‘good’ filming, it will be very much slippery slope territory to impose any restrictions on filming in public whatsoever.
Please start live streaming your actions in public for us all to watch. You don’t have any abusive exes or family members, I hope. Also I trust you’ve never said anything to irritate right wing fanatics. Maybe if it’s a little more personal, you’d have a little more empathy.
Also, of note, not all limits are from the law. Peer pressure and private businesses saying “You can’t do that in here” are also tools.
Not all limits come from the law, that’s correct. But one doesn’t have to listen to peer pressure. And businesses don’t control the public.
I can’t wait to see where this goes. We need a lumen Truman Show.
If the camera is hidden, how can you prevent unauthorized filming? Restroom, changing rooms, even schools or children playgrounds, beaches?
Sure, a beach is public, so that authorizes me to film your wife’s butt or your kid? That’s not how it works.
Did you know that on the public beach, I can look at your wife’s butt, or your kids, with my very own eyes? Why does recording it cause you any greater harm than looking with my eyes?
Is it because it involves technology? Is it because it implies I’m too interested in what I see, so it makes you feel uncomfortable?
Yes because it involves technology, no not because it implies interest. It’s wrong because technology lets you share what you see with others. People trust you to see butts on a beach because they know who exactly can see the butts, andcan personally deal with creeps. I wouldn’t go to a beach where my butt could end up online without my being abletostop it (and I mean a focused shot, not a general beach picture).
The only thing you’ve said is wrong is the sharing of pictures/video.
So, the problem is not the glasses, it’s not taking video with them, it’s sharing that video with others. So maybe chill out about the stuff that isn’t the actual problem.
(Not that the act of sharing is actually going to harm the subject of the video, anyway)
Some countries have the legal principle of “right to one’s own image”, and maybe you want that. But everyone here advocating violence seem to have forgotten how to do democracy.
A lot of changes in democracies happen following violent events. Violence is unfortunately one of the very few effective method to raise attention on an issue.
The law hardly change spontaneously.
If you believe that the ends always justify the means you have no argument against political violence used against you except that the ends are wrong… so we’re back to square one, and fighting in the street over every political disagreement. Congrats.
In this case, the ratio is probably of 100:1 or 1000:1 people in my favor. So if it comes down that, see you outside!
You think over 99% of people turning up for the meta glasses street brawl are in favour of punching people for wearing the wrong glasses?
If you use a Meta smartglass, the “sharing” is out of your control.
It’s actually going to be interesting when a smartglass wearer has to explain a judge they didn’t know it was recording and uploading pictures or videos.
Explaining to the judge in what court case? When some of the keyboard warriors here are in the dock for assault? Or for some imagined crime of “recording a video of me”?
I actually don’t think Meta breaks gdpr that badly, and I know for a fact they don’t upload video all the time, because it’s not physically possible.
Finally someone who can think. Thank you. None of these people’s arguments so far have been rational.
It’s a Meta product so the vibes are bad, so everything to do with it is wrong and evil. Anyone who says anything contrary to “this is wrong and evil” is wrong and evil.
Preventing unauthorised filming in private has been a problem for a long time now, that existed before Meta Ray-Ben did.
If you’re on a public beach, I can film your wife’s butt and your kid and choose to do so either secretly or visibly. All at my sole discretion. I know that this comment will be downvoted to oblivion because people don’t like this fact, but it’s a fact nonetheless.
It’s also a fact that people can stop you, illegal or not, whether you like it or not. You also act as though a visible, private camera the same as a slealth camera that uploads to a cloud. They are different, and so people will feel different about them.
You seem more focused on trying to get away with stealth recording than if it’s correct to do so, especially when someone argues about the ethics.
In Brazil, and I suppose most EU countries, every individual has the rights to their own image, as in, I cannot take a picture of you, or one that clearly identifies you, without your consent. If I use it for commercial purposes, I may also need to reach an agreement of some sort with you. Save a few exceptions, such as people walking on the background of a live reporter, a person has rights to ask for their likeness to be removed or blurred.
Most people aren’t aware of their rights, tho