Norway wants time to write permanent rules for glasses that can record bystanders.
See full article...
See full article...
AI glasses face their first major government crackdown
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
You go Norway. Sadly the USA is probably the last prace that might ever see even a half-assed swiss-cheese pervert goggles privacy law.
Upvote
149
(151
/
-2)
The discerning reader will note that it's the companies profiting from the devices, and the surveillance information that they collect, that are pushing this viewpoint. It is considerably less clear that the public share this view. And those who understand the implications of always-on surveillance certainly don't.
tldr; These things are Flock's wet dream.
Upvote
187
(187
/
0)
"Gateway to AI"?
Geez... give it more 50 years and people will not be able to differentiate between their own children or operate a toilet without AR/AI glasses.
Geez... give it more 50 years and people will not be able to differentiate between their own children or operate a toilet without AR/AI glasses.
Upvote
82
(83
/
-1)
I wouldn't want to see safety cameras, say something obvious on a cyclists helmet banned, or rules that get in the way of photographers making their art, etc, but these glasses creep me out and break the social contract.
Upvote
107
(109
/
-2)
I would agree. Such laws might create a market for AI glasses but w/o cameras and with mics that have the ability to mostly only hear the wearer. Still useful but not nearly as intrusive. It would be more like a heads up display for your phone.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Flock cameras are in public spaces, and there's a bit of a hullaballoo about those.
Upvote
86
(86
/
0)
At least smart glasses without cameras are increasingly a thing. Also, I like that my Xreal glasses have a removable camera so I only look odd on the plane, but not pervert odd.
Upvote
-8
(2
/
-10)
Dutch parlement wants it banned too, current government says it is already covered by existing privacy laws:
https://nos.nl/artikel/2632327-tweede-kamer-wil-breder-en-duidelijker-verbod-op-camerabril
https://nos.nl/artikel/2632327-tweede-kamer-wil-breder-en-duidelijker-verbod-op-camerabril
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
Try starting with consent as a reasonable requirement and work backwards from there. There is substantial difference between a not having an expectation of privacy and accepting invasive surveillance.
You do not have my consent. This should be the default.
Upvote
105
(111
/
-6)
... until or unless some millionaire / billionaire loses their fortune thanks to footage from a pair of these AI glasses (providing footage proving they're cheating on their spouse, leading to them losing their shirt in a divorce despite a pre-nup) or ending up with jail time (if someone gets evidence of them committing a financial crime that takes money from other millionaires / billionaires, a la Bernie Madoff).
Upvote
9
(12
/
-3)
Except for the person holding the phone up so that the camera can record stuff...
Upvote
114
(116
/
-2)
Nice strawman!
First off, the "no expectation of privacy in public spaces" isn't as absolute as you're making out. Just a couple of days ago, a judge rules Flock surveillance a violation of the Fourth Ammendment. Yeah, it's still got a ways to go in the court system, but at least one judge gets that the rules have changed.
And ignoring the difference between someone using a phone or camera in public vs these glasses is just disingenuous. It's obvious when someone is taking pictures with a phone or camera. They've got it out and visible and it's clear what those devices do. Glasses, on the other hand, are not expected to take pictures and it's not at all clear that a person wearing these is taking a picture or not.
Upvote
126
(130
/
-4)
The Dutch parliament has also discussed legislation to ban these glasses and several major retailers have stopped selling them already after our Privacy authority declared that their use in public is likely illegal.
However, our privacy legislation is far beyond anything the US has
However, our privacy legislation is far beyond anything the US has
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
Consent? In these United States? Psh. That's commie talk!
/s, but only kind of since the current leader of the country is an adjudicated rapist who has been credibly accused of sexually assaulting and trafficking many girls under the age of 18, and the majority of the legislature have turned a blind eye to it.
Upvote
36
(38
/
-2)
MilanKraft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
As in healthcare, education, and other areas that make their societies [more stable and advanced in common sense ways] than our own, the Scandinavian countries lead and we'll sit on our asses and go "huh," for the next 20+ years before we figure out maybe they're onto something... and then do nothing about it anyway.
something something murica got guns and freedumz, fuck yeah
Last edited:
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
Who says you have to? The law in the article applies to wearables, so your argument is only a problem if someone wrote a new law to apply it to other things. At that point you could get mad about that.
Upvote
41
(42
/
-1)
Wait, you think that these glasses are actually about the cameras? That's just ludicrous. Look at the companies promoting them, each and every one is a data aggregator/data collector of some sort. The fact that these glasses take pictures is secondary aspect to the data collection problem.
Do try to keep up.
Upvote
47
(52
/
-5)
There's a huge difference between the cameras and microphones in these glasses as those in your phone. If you walked around all day holding your phone up, recording people, you'd probably find yourself being quite unpopular very quickly.
As long as we're building the worst parts of Cyberpunk technology, can we also at least build the technology that lets us scramble anything which tries to record our faces? Because I'd be totally down for a tiny, simple implant that gives me the ability to control that.
As long as we're building the worst parts of Cyberpunk technology, can we also at least build the technology that lets us scramble anything which tries to record our faces? Because I'd be totally down for a tiny, simple implant that gives me the ability to control that.
Upvote
38
(41
/
-3)
There's a pretty substantial difference between "there is a CCTV camera over the parking lot, to extend the night watchman's field of view so he can come running if there's an incident, and it records video on a loop" and "there are 140,000 networked cameras running real-time facial, clothing, licence plate, etc. recognition and correlating that with cellular radio traffic to track 200 million individuals through every step of their day, plus an AI that lets anyone with access quickly prepare a report on any person who's ever been spotted by the system."
Most people are OK with the former. Most people are not OK with the latter.
And yes, mobile phones are a problem. Being recorded without consent is a problem. They're a big part of the reason why kids are afraid to be kids now. How can you let loose and be silly if you know that anything you get wrong is going straight onto YouTube Shorts or TikTok? But at least a phone being held up is a somewhat noticeable indication of being filmed – very unlike the surveillance glasses.
The phone camera problem was created organically and we don't have a good solution to it yet. That doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to intentionally make another, worse problem of a similar but more insidious nature.
Upvote
82
(85
/
-3)
Simply put, Flock is contracted by government entities and installed on public infrastructure. Government requires a lawful, articulable, reason to run surveillance on a member of the populace or the populace in whole. The surveillance must be narrowly tailored to support the lawful and articulable reasons the cameras were installed to support in the first place and cannot be blanket 24/7/365.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
Another swing and miss. It is about the search and the taking IN ITSELF, not about how the material and information is used.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
ubercurmudgeon
Ars Praefectus
The question is, has Zuckerberg sucked up sufficiently to Trump, and paid the requisite amount of bribes, to get tariffs imposed on Norway?
Upvote
6
(10
/
-4)
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
You know what I never hear anyone talk about when it comes to AI glasses? Social media is able to instantly add facial filters to any video, generated on the fly... So then, why not demand that companies like Meta program these glasses to automatically blur any face and distort any voice, unless the device detects a person being recorded verbally consent to being recorded? Make it mandatory that they give consent for every recording, too; no blanket consent in perpetuity. That would solve a HUGE amount of problems.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I'm not sure you have since the concerns you mention are in the US, and this law was passed in Norway.
Upvote
15
(18
/
-3)
Ah but in the world that the people selling them come from, everyone IS an adversary, and every interaction is a competition. You "win or lose" every single conversation. They can't see any other way of life. You can see this when Musk talks about how his giant steel polygon of a car will "win" every crash, as if what we want is to kill anyone we have an accident with.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Yea, but you know, jailbreak and stuff.
I think it is even worse, because you would relax and presume all faces are blurred and all voices distorted and you would find jailbroken devices in the black market and not know which one is which.
Eventually someone will hack Meta glasses, making them independent from the Zuckship, and any controls will be gone.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)