Ask HN: How to prevent Apple Vision Pro users from filming you? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How to prevent Apple Vision Pro users from filming you?

20 pointsbrisky60 comments

Apple Vision Pro headset is out and soon these headset users will be swarming the streets. In a way Apple Vision Pro are very sophisticated spy glasses. Shouldn't there be a standard way to enforce 'do not film' policy? Like a QR code that would work as 'robots.txt' and would inform smart glasses that you don't agree to be filmed?

View on HN

Is there a reason you think this is more concerning than every person owning a telephoto multi-lens high fidelity digital camera and using it in public constantly?

I'm not saying that to belittle, I'm just wondering what you perceive the difference to actually be.

I do. If I try to film something in public I am very aware that people notice this and that I should not be pointing my phone camera at their children, etc. It is not that easy to get away with filming others unnoticed with a smartphone.

Seems like putting the phone in a shirt pocket or just pretending to use it while filming on a wide angle lens would both be a lot less noticeable than someone with a giant headset constantly tripping over themselves.

And your concern is that people wearing giant face computing ski goggles with a creepy version of their eyes, pointed at your kids, is somehow going to be more inconspicuous than someone taking a picture of the kids with a smartphone?

Thats insane. Anyway the whole point is moot because you can’t wear it out and about. It has boundary limits

First, I appreciate the paranoia and privacy concerns.

Second, I doubt these will be flooding the streets any time soon., but yes eventually when the cost is lower and technology is more matured.

Third, we're already being filmed by corporate America. Door bell cameras, car cameras, people's phones and online image/video services, and just general corporate surveillance.

Sadly the cat's out of the bag so to speak and aside from wearing anti-recording clothing I don't think there's yet a practical way out of being surveilled.

I don't see why new privacy standard can not appear now even though a problem has gotten bad already. There is no need to have this defeatist attitude.

I am all ears for suggestions on how to actually do that then.

What will the regulations be?

How do you get the government to want to implement such policies?

How do you enforce them?

How do you get around corporate lobbying against changes to their business operations?

I think the roadmap could be as follows:

1. A standard appears to communicate that you don't want to be filmed (let's say QR code) 2. Some consumer-friendly company follows to implement it 3. EU publishes a directive in Europe for devices to respect this requirement (with some exceptions for security surveillance, etc) 4. Eventually even some of USA companies follow on with this practise

I have no answers to your questions but a few things ping ponging around in my head landed on "lewd content". This would not help government regulations and might even violate some rules but much like law enforcement officers blasting copyrighted music to keep videos of them offline there could probably be something similar to keep recorded content from being rebroadcasted / published.

Perhaps there is a way to create clothing that when viewed by the human eye appears "normal" but then when viewed by a camera will appear highly offensive and perhaps even contain keywords that big platforms will go out of their way to censor.

Maybe it's a dumb direction to think on my part or a dumb idea in general, I don't know.

This 100%. You also have to keep in mind that taking photos in public spaces is protected under the first amendment in the US. Yes, the first amendment has become a bit unpopular lately but even then, fighting this battle is going to be extremely difficult.

What I do wonder is how private space owners will deal with AR/VR.

How do they deal with it now? An AR/VR rig is more obvious than a smartphone and not nearly as ubiquitous, so usage should stand out more. Seems like a sign or other notification would be enough to stop all but the most obnoxious assholes and influencers.

I would be more concerned about the Meta Ray-Bans as they actually look like Sunglasses:

https://www.ray-ban.com/canada/en/rayban-meta-smart-glasses

Exactly where my thoughts went, much easier to not realize its a recording device.

Looks there's a light that glows when it's recording alerting folks. Is there a similar mechanism on the AVP?

Yes the front display will pulse white.

I think it’s unlikely people will be roaming the streets with these on, and I’m unclear why this is a challenge specific to the Vision Pro? In most jurisdictions if you’re in a public place you can’t prevent anyone filming you.

You’ve got a strong signal you might be filmed with the Vision Pro in the form of a gigantic headset, if you’re that worried avoid people with them on.

This is naive. Let's say you go to a restaurant and the waiter has the headset on. Or you go to a theater and the doorman has one. I would like to have a way to communicate directly that I don't appreciate being filmed without asking.

What in the world would a waiter or a doorman be using this for while on the job? Also, you are already being filmed at the restaurant, or the theater entrance. If you enter someone's property they don't need your permission to film you.

> If you enter someone's property they don't need your permission to film you.

Not particularly relevant to the question here, but worth mentioning that there are exceptions for places with an expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms and lodging rentals (hotel rooms, interior space of an Airbnb, etc.).

Show a "I don't want to be filmed" sentence encoded in a QR code on your t-shirt and enforce legally that unless you a specific license you have to shut your camera.

Aka real-life "do not track" header ?

I would leave that restaurant and not enter that theater.

It’s crazy remembering the pushback from Google Glass a decade ago compared to now with people embracing the exact same thing (but worse) with open arms under the guise of it now supposedly being normal.

"Apple good Google bad"

> It’s crazy remembering the pushback from Google Glass a decade ago compared to now with people embracing the exact same thing (but worse)

I don't think anybody thinks that the Apple Vision Pro is going to be used out in public like that, and it makes no attempt to disguise what it is. Whereas Google Glass was intended to look like a pair of glasses and be used out in public.

You have no right to not be filmed in public, in the US at least. Someone can already film you with their phone, what makes this any different?

I usually can figure out when I am being filmed by a smartphone and ask people not to do this.

And if they refuse?

Then I can walk away

Smartphones are the easy ones. It's the surveillance cameras on store fronts, speed cameras/license plate scanners on the poles, and dash cameras you are probably caught the most on.

And that's not counting other wearable cameras, such as the Meta RayBans mentioned elsewhere in this conversation.

I have every right to object to being surveilled and to avoid/prevent it to the greatest degree I can.

Probably have to go with "prevent", since avoiding is kinda out of question these days. As they say, that time has passed with cameras everywhere, including mounted on street poles and store fronts.

IR LED laden accessories will probably be your best bet.

I was just responding to the weird notion that because a thing is legally permissible, we just need to roll over and accept it. Nobody has to do that.

Yes, we're being spied on everywhere. But that in no way means that it's pointless to avoid it wherever we can.

I would be far more concerned with the proliferation of Ring doorbells and cloud connected security cameras and systems.

I actually wonder if some kind of post processing could be used to remove people from videos/pictures but that would require some kind of registry which causes its own problems

FWIW this is a more of social issue rather than a legal one. At least in America, taking photos / videos of things which are plainly visible in public spaces is legal (different for private property). Caveat wiretapping laws and anything else relevant.

So for many common situations, the most you could do is make a polite request stating your preferences, without any expectation that it'd be enforced, unless Apple just feels like it as a policy decision.

Unless you are trolling, I'm genuinely curious why you think this headset will be "swarming the streets"?

What about this $3k product will make people go out in droves and buy it, to then go and use it in the streets? What killer app will convince people that it's OK to wear this when they are going out in public?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(Brin_novel)

One of the minor themes is old people obsessively, aggressively filming everything in public.

Note how well "robots.txt" works: the problem is bad actors tend not to follow "social convention" rules like that. The people that do adhere to such rules are probably not going to be the worrisome agents, anyway.

Furthermore; the laws are already ahead of you: if a store's surveillance video is requested by a court, and it has blocked out the people wearing "don't see me" codes; ... who does the court hold has destroyed evidence? Store owner that turned the feature on? Vendor that enabled it? Person who wore a mask with the activating code?

actually I recently visited with some cantankerous, illiterate and poor people in California and many were definitely filming things aggressively with phones, and posting the videos too.. the quality of the video as far as focus and lighting are often really good. The content is often the most ridiculous and/or ugly personal confrontations.. strange days

I think the 'do not film' request should be respected by consumer devices. It is ok for security cameras to ignore such a requirement.

One thing I haven't really seen anyone mention is that there is no way to discreetly record someone with the Vision Pro. The whole front screen either flashes white (for photos) or stays white for the duration of a video recording.

Apple already scrubs faces in Apple Maps.

Simply get legislation passed that requires Apple scan all VP imagery and scrub your registered Facial ID from every repository. They'll need to create a Gait ID for videos and you'll need to register that.

They're welcome to film me pointing and laughing at them for appearing in public.

You can run a lot faster than they can with those dumb goggles on.

Maybe it's gamified exercise for them? Chase the Paranoid, on the App Store for $1.99. Kinda like Pokémon but with real people.

It uses cloud facial recognition and emotion analysis to identify people who will likely run away at the sight of a Vision Pro, and lays out a perfect AR intercept course for the wearer. Eventually it builds up a database of runaway targets and will notify you if one is detected nearby. If you catch them faster than the last wearer did, you get on the leaderboard.

Gotta catch them all, before the battery runs out.

There are already and have been dozens of devices that allow you to discretely film people. Not to mention the millions of surveillance cameras from business to doorbell cams.

Why the specific mention of a very non-discrete device other than recency? Calling them “very sophisticated spyglasses” makes it hard to take this seriously. Even though mass surveillance is very much an important topic of discussion.

I'm somewhat confident that something like the Meta Ray-Bans will become ubiquitous fairly soon. I suspect they'll have a more police body-cam type form factor and be sold as "safety" devices. The primary use will of course be TikTok etc, but will be sold as safety devices because there is just enough truth to it that'll make push back harder.

Funny when Google Glass was announced there was a huge amount of criticism about filming, and there were even signs on shops prohibiting Google Glass, even though it never became a consumer product at all, and even though Google Glass did have a recording indicator. Yet this is the first time I see someone concerned about Vision Pro filming.

Was at a ski hill recently. A sizable fraction of the people on the hill had a GoPro stuck to their helmet.

Carry a powerful flashlight and blind everyone who might even think about looking your way.

Just get used to it. This is the future. Meta and Apple will eventually have a near real time point cloud of just about every public space imaginable. Once these things are slim enough to truly take off, there will be no going back.

If this is the future, then we're doomed. I think, though, that such fatalism isn't warranted. It will be a battle, yes, and it will take a long time, but there is always hope that we can avoid a complete dystopia.

I don’t think people are going to be wandering around with Apple Vision Pro on, there’s millions of Quest headsets out there that are lighter and have more battery life, and I’ve never seen one in private, much less in public.

I think you underestimate how Apple will make this 'cool' and cool people will start wearing it in public. In retrospect many thought that Airpods look dumb as well.

> many thought that Airpods look dumb as well.

I still do.

The privacy battle was lost a long time ago. Just easier to assume you're being filmed / recorded / monitored at all times.

If you don't want to be recorded in public I think you've got a lot more to worry about than just other people with headsets.

Yes, and so?

It's perfectly reasonable to try to minimize how much you're being spied on even if you can't completely stop it. You do what you can.

I don't expect to see many people using these things in the streets, but if I do, my plan is to avoid going anywhere near them.

The same way you prevent people from filming with an iphone. You don't.

You could ask Apple to charge ~$4K for them so there are fewer “on the street”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com