Feel free to point out the hypochrisy. I'll remind you that sharing a video you took of someone without their consent is not the same as recording them and keeping the video strictly for yourself
You don't need someone's consent to record in public, and if any of the employees objected to the publication of the recording, they could consult with an attorney about a portrait rights claim. Such a claim should be adjudicated by a court, not Facebook.
And let's be clear about the context here: these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online, and they're also used to record all sorts of junk/nonsense ("pranks", pickup artist BS, etc.).
Meta doesn't seem to have a problem with content recorded with these glasses being posted on its platforms, even when it's objectionable, because it's literally everywhere. The only problem here, obviously, was that he was recording Meta employees.
That's wild. In Ireland, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place, so you can record without issue.
If you have any respect, don't film other people or at least blur them.
Anyway, still not applicable in the Netherlands.
I cant just take a photo of a person or even car on the street and just share it online unless its clear the car or person is not the central point of the photo standing alone.
Only few exceptions on that
But you raise an interesting point: if this would be against the law in Germany, why is Facebook waiting for these glasses to be banned? It never should have made these available in Germany, and should be using technical means to ensure that they cannot function inside of Germany's borders.
So it's just more proof of the hypocrisy. Meta doesn't care about the privacy of the plebs.
It's perfectly fine to take pictures of the Brandenburger Tor for example and post them online. There will likely be people in that picture but as they are not the main aspect of the image, it will be fine.
It's something different if you zoom in on somebody in that scene and he becomes the main point of the image. Then his personal rights overwhelm the right to document public spaces.
You could use Google, ChatGPT, Claude, etc. to educate yourself about the law before you post.
Under Article 139a of the Dutch Criminal Code, you are legally allowed to record any conversation in which you are a participant. You don't need to inform or obtain permission from another party.
There's no law that forbids recording people in public spaces. GDPR and portrait rights claims may be implicated, but if Facebook wants to take the position that it removed this man's videos as an adjudication of claims those recorded never brought themselves, it begs the question: why is it selling its glasses and allowing them to record in the Netherlands in the first place?
No I haven't, you should re-read what I actually wrote.
https://www.anp.nl/blog/305/privacywetgeving-mag-je-filmen-o... is a decent article(in Dutch) about some of the complexities of Dutch privacy law when it comes to filming people in public spaces.
> if you are not targeting any individual in particular.
This to me is wild. I use the glasses to film my kids and share it on private hard-drives with grandparents, that's it. It's wild to me that I can surreptitiously film someone on the street and publish it online for views, and the only recourse the person has, is to go to court? Seems insane.
Why does Hollywood require a release but Youtube does not?
EDIT: People are getting hung-up on my use case. But that's not the question posed here.
And unless Meta want's to pay me $1000's in fines (pretty sure my videos are worth less to them), sharing with Meta analytics is opt-in.
I agree posting videos of people without their consent should be illegal, and I thought it was? Why does Hollywood require a release form but YouTube does not?
But that's regardless of whether it was filmed on Meta Glasses or a pocket camera.
As someone who trains AI for a living, the resultant fines are definitely not worth my data.
The biggest fine ever recorded for CCPA violations was against Disney, and it was for a paltry $2.75 million. Disney pulls in $2.75 million in revenue every ~10 mintues.
The potential fines for these types of laws are basically considered a cost of doing business if they ever need to be paid, and pale in comparison to the revenue earned by monetizing user data.
I asked what other enforcement mechanisms there could be since an added fine isn't really teeth-y enough unless it follows the EU model for privacy violations: initial fine and a requirement to change behaviour, no change in behaviour increases the fine up to 6% global revenue, and the fines will keep coming until the behaviour is changed.
Perhaps for the company you work at it might not be worth it but we are talking about one of the most profitable companies in the history of mankind.
Given the marginal value of my data to training anything (near zero), the lawsuit costs (even if I personally don't see any of the money) is far too large. I am not saying they definitely won't do it, they've bumbled into worse situations before but this feels like an obvious own goal if they try.
And, as we all know, tech companies and especially Meta never ever lie or trick you. They were never caught red handed sharing your information and violating your privacy despite claiming the opposite. They also are never fined because they are so careful, and the fines and consequences are always big enough to make them clean up their act.
Oh, wait, for a moment I forgot about the past two decades.
Did you think they were making it up? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q33nvj0qpo
I couldn't conceive of a world in which I'd provide meta with video of my family. Or... anything, really.
Meta's pretty explicit about asking for opt-in and laying out exactly how your videos are used as part of onboarding.
> the only recourse the person has, is to go to court
Well, typically, if you are in public, you can do just about anything with regards to recording. In private the laws are a bit different. Either way it is a barrier.
They've played fast and loose with copyrighted material for years, as shown in court records.
They company was founded on the principle of breaking privacy law, as highlighted in Zuckerberg's famous Dumb Fucks conversation.
Meta does what Meta can get away with and you really can't do anything about it without exceptionally deep pockets.
The publishing industry has more money than you do and they failed too.
it's perfectly legal to record but publish, especially in but not limited to a commercial context without explicit consent violates portrait rights under the GDPR in the EU. And I strongly suspect if you posted a video in which people explicitly object to being filmed and flag that on Facebook or other platforms it will get taken down.
Note that the employees were not recognisable; their faces were blurred out.
In contrast to what people think, Facebook IS NOT public infrastructure.
If Meta removes some content from Meta website, and you don't like that, it's a you problem, right?
They want protection from liability and also editorial control?
Regardless of the legal status, it seems clear that when massive companies refuse to allow the media they own to publish a dissenting opinion, we’re not headed towards a ~~more~~ democratic society.
Given all the sh*t that FB videos contain, I guess Meta's direction will soon be in jail.
They have to choose, safe harbor provisioning or responsibility for the content.
Since two decades they decide what goes up and what goes down, by means of their algorithms. And basically nobody complained so far (well, around 12 people on earth did - one of them is me).
It was completely okay for you since then. It was never a big topic. You were absolutely fine with that.
And now they just went one step further and removed something completely because they disliked it (well, who knows how often they already did, but it just never went public enough?!).
... and that's not even stupid. Because they know one thing that some of you didn't realize yet: You'll have forgotten it in a week as soon as public attention moves to next week's big bummer.
It's not even their fault that you misunderstand Facebook as a public space since two decades. It isn't. It never was. It's a commercial website. They let you upload your pointless vacation photos. That's basically it.
The hypocrisy is probably located around here:
> "I've been making satirical videos about all kinds of things for ten years: Gaza, Ukraine, refugees. Funny videos that push boundaries and provoke discussion. But I've never experienced a video being removed before.
we do indeed live in a low trust society as of now.
Since you used the most generic language possible, I guess me filming my nephew blowing on the cadles at his 8th birthday is harrassing and bullying and I should expect a punch in the face
What the law says about consent is irrelevant to the hypocrisy, and the videos are automatically uploaded to meta without anyone's consent anyway. You know this very well, there is no need to cosplay the smart devil's advocate.
So tell me now, is a GoPro/Canon/Apple employee who doesn't consent to being the subject of a video taken with a GoPro/Canon/iPhone camera also a hypochrite?
(Oh, and they don't care about local solutions. Their sneakiness with Free Basics is clear. Can you blame them for Myanmar? I think you can, but it's also clear they want to supplant all the other social networks, like a system each individual country might come up with)
It does bother me being here on hacker news because it's a good aggregator but you get people standing up for their industry no matter what or flagging anything they disagree with
This distinction does not matter if people feel unsafe regardless of "keeping it to yourself". It is still very creepy for a lot of people especially women and children. So what is the point of this "reminder"?