If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
-
@neptune22222 If you're filming people without their knowledge and consent (unless it's in the public interest like recording police work), this is still wrong and creepy.
And even for public interest reporting, your camera should be visible.
Right, I'm just making the point that whether it is a phone or glasses makes no difference.
-
If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
I agree with you, first off.
Also, I have no idea what the laws are like in Canada or anywhere else outside of the US.
That having been said…
Recording Video in Public Places
Recording video in public is generally permissible in places like public parks, city streets, and sidewalks, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This means that if something is visible to the naked eye in a public space, you can record it. This principle extends to filming government buildings and the actions of public officials, like police officers, performing their duties in public.
This right does not extend into areas that, while publicly accessible, are considered private. The key determinant is the “reasonable expectation of privacy,” meaning you cannot use technology to see through the walls of a private home from a public street. The legal framework protects what people can plainly see, not what can be captured with invasive technology.
The Legality of Recording Audio
Capturing audio is governed by stricter laws than recording video alone, due to federal and state wiretapping statutes. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), often called the Wiretap Act, makes it illegal to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. A violation of this act can lead to both criminal penalties and civil lawsuits.
The federal law, and the laws in a majority of states, operate under a “one-party consent” rule. This means you can legally record a conversation if you are a party to that conversation, as your participation implies your own consent. Most states and the District of Columbia follow this standard.
A number of states, however, have enacted more stringent “all-party consent” laws. In these jurisdictions, you must obtain permission from everyone involved in a private conversation to legally record it. States with all-party consent laws include:
- California
- Florida
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
If a conversation involves participants in different states, the best practice is to adhere to the strictest applicable law, which is the all-party consent rule.
Source: https://legalclarity.org/are-camera-glasses-legal-video-and-audio-recording-laws/
Obligatory: I'm not a lawyer.
It seems to me like, at least most places in the U.S., the fact that it records video is a non-issue while in public, at least in the legal sense, but also like the fact that it records audio could very easily make it illegal in public.
-
Right, I'm just making the point that whether it is a phone or glasses makes no difference.
@neptune22222 Yes, it does. People don't assume you are filming them when you are just wearing glasses. Most people with a rectangle pointed at them will suspect you might be filming them. The fact that it's disguised as glasses to record people without their knowledge matters a lot.
-
@neptune22222 Yes, it does. People don't assume you are filming them when you are just wearing glasses. Most people with a rectangle pointed at them will suspect you might be filming them. The fact that it's disguised as glasses to record people without their knowledge matters a lot.
People walk around with their phones in front of them, as if they are video chatting, all of the time.
If someone is secretly recording video and audio of other people, that's creepy, independent of form factor.
-
I agree with you, first off.
Also, I have no idea what the laws are like in Canada or anywhere else outside of the US.
That having been said…
Recording Video in Public Places
Recording video in public is generally permissible in places like public parks, city streets, and sidewalks, where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This means that if something is visible to the naked eye in a public space, you can record it. This principle extends to filming government buildings and the actions of public officials, like police officers, performing their duties in public.
This right does not extend into areas that, while publicly accessible, are considered private. The key determinant is the “reasonable expectation of privacy,” meaning you cannot use technology to see through the walls of a private home from a public street. The legal framework protects what people can plainly see, not what can be captured with invasive technology.
The Legality of Recording Audio
Capturing audio is governed by stricter laws than recording video alone, due to federal and state wiretapping statutes. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), often called the Wiretap Act, makes it illegal to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. A violation of this act can lead to both criminal penalties and civil lawsuits.
The federal law, and the laws in a majority of states, operate under a “one-party consent” rule. This means you can legally record a conversation if you are a party to that conversation, as your participation implies your own consent. Most states and the District of Columbia follow this standard.
A number of states, however, have enacted more stringent “all-party consent” laws. In these jurisdictions, you must obtain permission from everyone involved in a private conversation to legally record it. States with all-party consent laws include:
- California
- Florida
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
If a conversation involves participants in different states, the best practice is to adhere to the strictest applicable law, which is the all-party consent rule.
Source: https://legalclarity.org/are-camera-glasses-legal-video-and-audio-recording-laws/
Obligatory: I'm not a lawyer.
It seems to me like, at least most places in the U.S., the fact that it records video is a non-issue while in public, at least in the legal sense, but also like the fact that it records audio could very easily make it illegal in public.
@the There is a difference between legal and ethical. I care much less about the former than the latter.
-
People walk around with their phones in front of them, as if they are video chatting, all of the time.
If someone is secretly recording video and audio of other people, that's creepy, independent of form factor.
@neptune22222 Yes, it's creepy too. Making this practice possible with glasses as well is doubly creepy, and needs to be pushed back against.
It's not because it's already wrong with phones that it's okay to add glasses to the abuse repertoire.
-
@the There is a difference between legal and ethical. I care much less about the former than the latter.
So do I. I also like to know how to get someone on a technicality when they're doing something unethical.
-
People walk around with their phones in front of them, as if they are video chatting, all of the time.
If someone is secretly recording video and audio of other people, that's creepy, independent of form factor.
It's a slightly separate topic, but I'm interested in building and selling FOSH headsets for low vision people to see better. It's an accessibility medical product idea with important privacy and security considerations. The product *could* record people in a creepy way, if it is built in an insecure and non-private way, but it's important to establish non-creepy glasses for these purposes and other useful purposes.
-
It's a slightly separate topic, but I'm interested in building and selling FOSH headsets for low vision people to see better. It's an accessibility medical product idea with important privacy and security considerations. The product *could* record people in a creepy way, if it is built in an insecure and non-private way, but it's important to establish non-creepy glasses for these purposes and other useful purposes.
@Em0nM4stodon Recognizing that Facebook should be boycotted in general is also a good idea, but also unrelated to glasses.
-
It's a slightly separate topic, but I'm interested in building and selling FOSH headsets for low vision people to see better. It's an accessibility medical product idea with important privacy and security considerations. The product *could* record people in a creepy way, if it is built in an insecure and non-private way, but it's important to establish non-creepy glasses for these purposes and other useful purposes.
@neptune22222 It doesn't have to be glasses then. It could be an offline camera wore in the neck using bright colors, and with clear warnings to people around that this device is recording but doesn't share data externally and is an assistive device. There are ways to build assistive technologies without infringing other people's rights and safety and feeding mass surveillance.
-
@neptune22222 It doesn't have to be glasses then. It could be an offline camera wore in the neck using bright colors, and with clear warnings to people around that this device is recording but doesn't share data externally and is an assistive device. There are ways to build assistive technologies without infringing other people's rights and safety and feeding mass surveillance.
The FOSH assistive glasses that I'm planning to build would require being glasses, but your point about them being a bright color is a good idea. I need to study more about how to guarantee that they do not record, which I think is unnecessary for the use cases that I think would be most immediately useful for low vision people. I think brand trust is necessary but not sufficient. For example, some people trust Apple, while I don't.
-
If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
I don't only want them to not talk to me; I don't want them to look in my direction.
-
People walk around with their phones in front of them, as if they are video chatting, all of the time.
If someone is secretly recording video and audio of other people, that's creepy, independent of form factor.
@neptune22222 @Em0nM4stodon "Secretly recording" is an actual crime in Massachusetts. It's not just creepy.
Open recording is not a crime.
-
I don't only want them to not talk to me; I don't want them to look in my direction.
@MegaMichelle Yes, this. Especially this.
-
@neptune22222 It doesn't have to be glasses then. It could be an offline camera wore in the neck using bright colors, and with clear warnings to people around that this device is recording but doesn't share data externally and is an assistive device. There are ways to build assistive technologies without infringing other people's rights and safety and feeding mass surveillance.
@Em0nM4stodon @neptune22222 If the glasses have to have a record function for some reason, they can have a small flashing red light and a small audible ping when recording.
-
If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
@Em0nM4stodon And I will punch them
-
If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
@Em0nM4stodon I cannot express how much I've been dying for glasses that are also screens since I read Snow Crash.
And I cannot further express how angry I am that the companies finally making that a reality are fucking it up by making them inherently surveillance devices.
-
If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
@Em0nM4stodon does it give us a license to punch them on the nose?
-
Hi Arthfach, I'm sorry that I've made the impression to you that I'm resisting privacy and security. I'm attempting to resist the idea that glasses are a fundamentally insecure or not private medium. Also, recording ICE and police, possibly using glasses, is important. Again, I think you have misunderstood my position. It's totally my fault, and I hope to better communicate my position, which is in summary:
1. Glasses with cameras and computers in them are important for visually impaired people. So, we should not push back against them indiscriminately.
2. Security and privacy are critical for medical devices, including assistive tech, and FOSH (Free Open Source Hardware) is a required but not sufficient part of secure and private technology.
I'm also blind, mostly, legally. I have Retinitus Pigmentosa, and I'm developing this private and secure assistive technology for myself and I believe it will also be useful to others who value security and privacy as much as I do.
-
@neptune22222 Yes, it's creepy too. Making this practice possible with glasses as well is doubly creepy, and needs to be pushed back against.
It's not because it's already wrong with phones that it's okay to add glasses to the abuse repertoire.
@Em0nM4stodon Your first toot in this string was right on the money, so I'm blocking that guy.
