Hacker News Reader

Comment by vkdelta | Hacker News Reader

How is different from another device ? Phone, digital camera, etc .. someone can use that for taking the same photo ..

Is it the added convenience of the glasses?

It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".

Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.

Interestingly, in my jurisdiction open carry is banned should concealed carry is not.

I feel like that is for most places in california isn't it? Open carry is illegal but conceal is not.

I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.

There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.

Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.

Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.

I didn't consent to being recorded in public, so don't agree that we just shrug it off.

In the US, you have consented. It is settled law that there is no expectation of privacy while you’re in public. This is how paparazzi, among others, can work their trade. If consent were required, every star would ban photos of themselves in public. They can’t and nor can you.

I'd argue it's not that you consented, it's that the law states that no consent is required.

And it's hard to call it consent when the alternative is never going in public which is infeasible for most people.

That’s a subtle but compelling distinction. Thanks.

Consent or not, most laws allows that anyway. This is the publication that is usually limited and usually only in cases where people can be too easily recognized. These exceptions are a bit vague on purpose so that it is still easy to publish stuff without having to ask every single person you came accross in the street for their consent.

But the world has changed. For instance last year I recognized my father in a travel video published by a youtuber from another continent. You would have thought that it is no big deal if a latin american can record video of people in europe because its target audience is unlikely to recognize anyone. Yet here we are, people nowadays can have relatives, friends and or former colleagues spread all over the globe, or consuming content published online but targetting a public from very far away.

Until now it wasn't a big deal as it was still easy to spot someone recording a video from quite far and move away or hide your face. And we would rely on good old shame and citizen vigilance to spot people recording kids for example. "spy cameras" used to have such a crappy quality you couldn't do anything too bad without getting close and in good light. Now it becomes a bit complicated with these glasses.

It’s easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someone’s looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.

Smart glasses that were clearly designed and visible were odious and shunned, so Meta (et al) have developed covert designs instead.

It's the same as a buttonhole camera used for spying. The differentiator (vs a phone or SLR or similar) is that its primary function is concealed.

I don't understand how this question can be asked in good faith?

If you have to defend smart glasses based on a technicality, that doesn't reflect very well on the glasses.

People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.

Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.

Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.

Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhere—in fact that’s how life works in general.

Just because we haven’t yet beaten ALPRs doesn’t mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.

One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.

Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.

If you don’t like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. It’s like telling doctors not to bother because everyone’s eventually going to die anyway.

I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.

I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.

Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.

Are you talking about Norway, or some other place?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com