7 ms·

If you want to do that, there is a wide variety of pre-existing recording devices available already...

peter_d_sherman 1mo ago
>"pre-existing recording devices available already..." Exactly! People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses! In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specifically, the lack of consent!) than it does from a specific type of video recording device...
- Atheros 1mo ago
  The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.
  - peter_d_sherman 1mo ago
    Well, I consider myself fairly stupid then! Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"? In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it? If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant? Because you haven't "caught" them? Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device? Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely? What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not? I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses... If I may suggest... If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording... If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?) So, to recap, I don't understand. You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses? Or is there some other issue or issues? I don't get it; help me out!
    - Atheros 1mo ago
      > In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording You have them. > then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device. > Are we talking about legal accountability Social and legal. > What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not? The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go. > argument.. would have to be applied universally Yup. > how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives. > You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...? Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't. This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others. > at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.

>"pre-existing recording devices available already..." Exactly! People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses! In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specifically, the lack of consent!) than it does from a specific type of video recording device...

Atheros 1mo ago
The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.
- peter_d_sherman 1mo ago
  Well, I consider myself fairly stupid then! Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"? In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it? If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant? Because you haven't "caught" them? Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device? Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely? What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not? I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses... If I may suggest... If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording... If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?) So, to recap, I don't understand. You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses? Or is there some other issue or issues? I don't get it; help me out!
  - Atheros 1mo ago
    > In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording You have them. > then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not? No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device. > Are we talking about legal accountability Social and legal. > What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not? The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go. > argument.. would have to be applied universally Yup. > how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives. > You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...? Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't. This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others. > at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.