The problem with photo since the birth of social media is that it's permanently stored in the internet, literally.
Photos used to be personal and (mostly) temporary. I may take a photo in public, develop, then share with the close ones and store in the photo book. Photo may be somehow passed onto others but likely thrown away eventually when I become less of importance to them, and it'll worn out.
With photos now uploaded to social media or the "cloud", they exist permanently as a means of backups, sold to 3rd party (knowingly or unknowingly) analyzed to "improve the experience of the platform".
User agreements change constantly, engineers make mistake, firms get liquidated and data might get sold, and most importantly, as a former employee of social media firms, what the firms say about the user privacy publicly is very different inside.
This is important for other reasons, as it is the same law that allows you to film cops.
Anyway that sounds like a very specific view only in your country since it's completely fine in the North American country in which I live.
He also said it is US-centric view. Which it is. Americans tend to think all the other countries are just little worst America or enemies. And get real angry when EU countries dont just project simplified American politics, but have their own equally complex one.
Germans all think this way. What a German-centric view. Germans tend to think anything they don't do is just America-centric. And get real angry when other countries dont just have the same German views, but have ones that may be closer to America.
GP made some US-centric statements in, absolute form, in a thread about initiatives from the European legislature... make it make sense, please. As EU citizen I don't yearn for inspiration from the US legal system when it comes to matters of privacy. The rights to privacy of any individual shouldn't be waved aside just because they happen to be situated in public space.
And in even more countries it is legal to film, but it's not legal to send that footage back to Meta's servers for use in LLM training.
In before your definition of the world is a handful of tiny white countries
A country could very easily decide you do have the right to go outside without creeps recording you with spy glasses.
The main problem is the interconnectedness.
They are realizing Hayden’s wet dream of total surveillance.
People in places I visit are just trying to live their lives, they aren't some kind of human zoo for me.
That strongly suggests me it’s not the cameras that are problematic, but something about what happens to the images.
Can we please learn to point at correct things? I honestly don’t know what wrong with everyone. It’s like when people have issues with building permits and utility pricing but blame “AI” or “data centers” instead.
If you need to put a camera on glasses for a legitimate reason, such as a device purely for accessibility, then you should be able to get an exception, of course.
> then you should be able to get an exception, of course
Of course not. Not when everyone reacts to the cameras themselves instead of TikTok uploads and whatever people are doing.
I just want legislation to ban the latter (as the actual harmful thing) and not the former (then maybe allow it on some sort of permit). But I’m sure it’ll be the opposite.
Which pisses me off because as a person who has difficulty with faces, for almost my whole adult life I’ve dreamed about a wearable that could make me aware when I see a person I know as I pass by (my brain doesn’t do that on its own). Strictly on-device, zero retention, no transmission, sure - I won’t buy e.g. Meta glasses or whatever until I know I can hack them to do the right thing. But of course there’ll be an argument that others aren’t supposed to know what my devices are doing, so ban them just in case because they make people uncomfortable.
We’re literally saying the same thing, pointing that the issue is with something that happens with the images/videos (TikToks)…
You can do that, just ask people for consent to be recorded/taken a picture
Taking a reference face image for vectorization - certainly. If I'll have a wearable device, I wouldn't mind asking, even explaining the setup, risk assessment, and so on. Right now I apologize that I would most likely not remember person's face anyway. Although I shouldn't have to because you don't have to do it for functionally 100% equivalent thing with your eyes.
Continuously scanning faces for matches against a private library, on device, zero transmissions and everything decent and respectful - how do you imagine consenting? A balloon above my head with a banner that goes like "sorry folks the meat in my head is wacky, so there's a machine that eyeballs y'all - no recordings, just some real-time processing that doesn't transmit or long-term store any results"? Even something like that probably won't cut it for a consent.
That said, I understand that people subconsciously flinch at even a sight of a camera. I've had a guest wearing Meta glasses just the other day, and I felt a little irk - despite having a pro-camera position (although to be precise my concern there was with Meta, not the glasses themselves). Worse, it turned out that guest was a victim of domestic abuse, so they have an arguably good reason to have a camera ready at a glance.
Weird world, weird times.