5 ms·

"HateAid said its complaint was based on a federal digital data protection law that prohibits the sale of communication devices designed to film people without

"HateAid said its complaint was based on a federal digital data protection law that prohibits the sale of communication devices designed to film people without them noticing." I think the light makes it pretty clear it's recording? There will always be devices made to suppress this... I'm not sure I want to go down the path of mandating an audible camera click sound like they have for smartphones in Japan

nemomarx 1mo ago
What would be best for a video equivalent of that? I can imagine an old school "film rolling" sound playing for as long as it's recording, or some tape hiss or something.
- soco 1mo ago
  When you film with a camera you are holding a camera and you're pointing it at people. When you film with your glasses, nothing of such happens. And the ridiculous defense "it has a light" is just that, ridiculous: you can't see a light if you're not looking directly at it and have convenient surrounding lighting.
  - garbawarb 1mo ago
    I'd say it's easier to covertly film someone with a smartphone than with glasses that have a lightup LED. With the smartphone you can just angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
    - nemomarx 1mo ago
      Pretty easy to block the led too, though.
    - soco 1mo ago
      Are we arguing about what the creepiest way is to film people on the streets? Who would want that in the first place?? I don't need encouraging creeps... I didn't hear yet "filming the ICE" as a argument - probably the only one I could understand, but there the problem is not the glasses anyway (nor the solution).
    - hamper653 1mo ago
      > angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally. So you film the ground?
      - inigyou 1mo ago
        Wide angle camera
        hamper653 1mo ago
        That’s legal?
        inigyou 1mo ago
        In places where covert recording is legal.
        hamper653 1mo ago
        Such places should be illegal.
    - grumbelbart2 1mo ago
      That would violate a different law, though, § 201 StGB (German penalty code) forbids recording if there is a reasonable assumption of privacy (which you can have even in public). This complaint is about a different law (§ 8 TDDDG), that explicitly forbids selling and owning devices that are designed as every-day objects and that can record sound and/or video and that.
  - fweimer 1mo ago
    This is the relevant law: https://www.buzer.de/8_TDDDG.htm https://www.buzer.de/8_TDDDG.htm (It used to be §90 TKG.) It's specifically about bug-like devices which transmit the recording. A typical consumer camera does not provide simultaneous uploading, I think. A device that is just recording for storage is not regulated this way. The law has been applied to baby monitors disguised as toys, which makes some sense to me. Smart watches and phones where the microphone can be controlled remotely, with that capability being marketed specifically for monitoring purposes, have also been targeted.
    - 1659447091 1mo ago
      > A typical consumer camera does not provide simultaneous uploading I think most cameras these days include the ability to live stream?
- tjpnz 1mo ago
  The problem is that even when they're not recording they're still beaming data back to Meta. Which is why I'll continue being a PITA to anyone wearing them where I'm in their field of view. I made a choice long ago that I wanted nothing to do with their dumbfuck products, but now they've decided I get no choice and that's not fucking on.
  - nemomarx 1mo ago
    If they're doing any analysis they must be recording in some sense, right? So logically the indicator needs to be active the whole time.
    - tjpnz 1mo ago
      My understanding is that it only comes on when they're recording.
- buzer 1mo ago
  Look at what how GDPR is interpreted in regards to CCTVs and bodycams. You generally do need to give proper Article 13 notice in regards to those recordings. In particular EDPB Guidelines on video recording (3/2019) state that: > The first layer concerns the primary way in which the controller first engages with the data subject. At this stage, controllers may use a warning sign showing the relevant information. The displayed information may be provided in combination with an icon in order to give, in an easily visible, intelligible and clearly readable manner, a meaningful overview of the intended processing (Article 12 (7) GDPR). The format of the information should be adjusted to the individual location (WP89 par. 22). > The information should be positioned in such a way that the data subject can easily recognize the circumstances of the surveillance before entering the monitored area (approximately at eye level). It is not necessary to reveal the position of the camera as long as there is no doubt as to which areas are subject to monitoring and the context of surveillance is clarified unambiguously > The first layer information (warning sign) should generally convey the most important information, e.g. the details of the purposes of processing, the identity of controller and the existence of the rights of the data subject, together with information on the greatest impacts of the processing While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes), it does give good idea on how unambiguous it should be.
  - thyristan 1mo ago
    > While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes) I'd guess that the glasses first transfer the recordings to Meta who process and store them abroad for various commercial purposes. That way of working can never fall under the household or journalistic exemptions. And per GDPR the owner of the glasses is on the hook for whatever Meta is doing, because the owner is (by GDPR) contracting Meta to do data processing for him/her.
    - buzer 1mo ago
      I don't think the owner is on the hook if they simply use the service. The individual wasn't the one who truly decided the essential means and purposes beyond personal use, Meta is the one who did that and is thus the controller for that processing. And I believe in case of European users the contract is between Meta Ireland and user, Meta Ireland is the one who would be the one doing the exporting in that case. Now if user actually did publish it on Meta's service for broader consumption then they might become controller for that & if initial purpose was that then the initial recording is unlikely to be exempted under household exemption.
- lukan 1mo ago
  A visible red LED like it used to be standard already to indicate something is recording?
  - nemomarx 1mo ago
    a video equivalent of the mandatory shutter sound, I mean. You might overlook an LED and it can be covered, but a constant loud noise is unmistakeable hopefully.
    - lukan 1mo ago
      That would be very annoying and mess with recording sound. And yes, a LED could be covered, but then this would be a crime in areas where covert recording is not allowed (e.g. public spaces).
  - hluska 1mo ago
    This sentence doesn’t make sense so I may be reading it wrong. But in sunlight the red LED is totally invisible. It’s too bad because they’re genuinely a good idea for me but I feel like a creep for even considering a pair.
    - lukan 1mo ago
      It is not invisible in sunlight, if it is bright enough. Nowdays one can make that adaptive to surrounding light.
  - sorokod 1mo ago
    Shouldn't blind people be accommodated too?
red_admiral 1mo ago
There's news articles already about women realising they were recorded without their consent and are now on TikTok or something. Just waiting for the first lawsuit against Meta about that, hopefully it kills the idea.
- paul7986 1mo ago
  I like smart glasses as they are useful for quickly capturing life's moments (friends/family/experiences) and learning more about the world around you. When i did some solo traveling in Berlin i learned a lot about things I was seeing thru my glasses. I think Apple if and when releases their smart glasses they could/should add a privacy feature. The feature would anonymize and or randomize all strangers faces in the pics and vids you take who are not in your network (Apple already knows many faces in your network now). Though Apple may never release such glasses but Google via Samsung will purportedly be releasing theirs this fall.
  - Frieren 1mo ago
    > Though Apple may never release such glasses but Google via Samsung will purportedly be releasing theirs this fall. The old "let's break the law as much and as blatantly as possible, our lawyers will delay any punishment until so many people has the product that is not politically viable to stop it". Let's start to put into prison CEOs that have broken the law, I do not care if millions use Facebook. It facilitated a genocide that is a crime against humanity. Let's tech them a lesson so they stop ignoring the law. And it should be an exemplary prison sentence, not just a couple of years that they spend at home.
    - peter_stokes 1mo ago
      The guy who was honestly providing his experience using smart glasses with his family and how they could be improved to be more privacy-conscious. You then went on a rant about how CEOs should be jailed because their products facilitated a genocide? How does this have to do with the parent? It's not even clear that these smart glasses are illegal (I suppose we'll see the results of the criminal complaint)? I hope you are okay man...

nemomarx 1mo ago

What would be best for a video equivalent of that? I can imagine an old school "film rolling" sound playing for as long as it's recording, or some tape hiss or something.

soco 1mo ago
When you film with a camera you are holding a camera and you're pointing it at people. When you film with your glasses, nothing of such happens. And the ridiculous defense "it has a light" is just that, ridiculous: you can't see a light if you're not looking directly at it and have convenient surrounding lighting.
- garbawarb 1mo ago
  I'd say it's easier to covertly film someone with a smartphone than with glasses that have a lightup LED. With the smartphone you can just angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
  - nemomarx 1mo ago
    Pretty easy to block the led too, though.
  - soco 1mo ago
    Are we arguing about what the creepiest way is to film people on the streets? Who would want that in the first place?? I don't need encouraging creeps... I didn't hear yet "filming the ICE" as a argument - probably the only one I could understand, but there the problem is not the glasses anyway (nor the solution).
  - hamper653 1mo ago
    > angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally. So you film the ground?
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      Wide angle camera
      - hamper653 1mo ago
        That’s legal?
        inigyou 1mo ago
        In places where covert recording is legal.
        hamper653 1mo ago
        Such places should be illegal.
  - grumbelbart2 1mo ago
    That would violate a different law, though, § 201 StGB (German penalty code) forbids recording if there is a reasonable assumption of privacy (which you can have even in public). This complaint is about a different law (§ 8 TDDDG), that explicitly forbids selling and owning devices that are designed as every-day objects and that can record sound and/or video and that.
- fweimer 1mo ago
  This is the relevant law: https://www.buzer.de/8_TDDDG.htm https://www.buzer.de/8_TDDDG.htm (It used to be §90 TKG.) It's specifically about bug-like devices which transmit the recording. A typical consumer camera does not provide simultaneous uploading, I think. A device that is just recording for storage is not regulated this way. The law has been applied to baby monitors disguised as toys, which makes some sense to me. Smart watches and phones where the microphone can be controlled remotely, with that capability being marketed specifically for monitoring purposes, have also been targeted.
  - 1659447091 1mo ago
    > A typical consumer camera does not provide simultaneous uploading I think most cameras these days include the ability to live stream?
tjpnz 1mo ago
The problem is that even when they're not recording they're still beaming data back to Meta. Which is why I'll continue being a PITA to anyone wearing them where I'm in their field of view. I made a choice long ago that I wanted nothing to do with their dumbfuck products, but now they've decided I get no choice and that's not fucking on.
- nemomarx 1mo ago
  If they're doing any analysis they must be recording in some sense, right? So logically the indicator needs to be active the whole time.
  - tjpnz 1mo ago
    My understanding is that it only comes on when they're recording.
buzer 1mo ago
Look at what how GDPR is interpreted in regards to CCTVs and bodycams. You generally do need to give proper Article 13 notice in regards to those recordings. In particular EDPB Guidelines on video recording (3/2019) state that: > The first layer concerns the primary way in which the controller first engages with the data subject. At this stage, controllers may use a warning sign showing the relevant information. The displayed information may be provided in combination with an icon in order to give, in an easily visible, intelligible and clearly readable manner, a meaningful overview of the intended processing (Article 12 (7) GDPR). The format of the information should be adjusted to the individual location (WP89 par. 22). > The information should be positioned in such a way that the data subject can easily recognize the circumstances of the surveillance before entering the monitored area (approximately at eye level). It is not necessary to reveal the position of the camera as long as there is no doubt as to which areas are subject to monitoring and the context of surveillance is clarified unambiguously > The first layer information (warning sign) should generally convey the most important information, e.g. the details of the purposes of processing, the identity of controller and the existence of the rights of the data subject, together with information on the greatest impacts of the processing While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes), it does give good idea on how unambiguous it should be.
- thyristan 1mo ago
  > While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes) I'd guess that the glasses first transfer the recordings to Meta who process and store them abroad for various commercial purposes. That way of working can never fall under the household or journalistic exemptions. And per GDPR the owner of the glasses is on the hook for whatever Meta is doing, because the owner is (by GDPR) contracting Meta to do data processing for him/her.
  - buzer 1mo ago
    I don't think the owner is on the hook if they simply use the service. The individual wasn't the one who truly decided the essential means and purposes beyond personal use, Meta is the one who did that and is thus the controller for that processing. And I believe in case of European users the contract is between Meta Ireland and user, Meta Ireland is the one who would be the one doing the exporting in that case. Now if user actually did publish it on Meta's service for broader consumption then they might become controller for that & if initial purpose was that then the initial recording is unlikely to be exempted under household exemption.
lukan 1mo ago
A visible red LED like it used to be standard already to indicate something is recording?
- nemomarx 1mo ago
  a video equivalent of the mandatory shutter sound, I mean. You might overlook an LED and it can be covered, but a constant loud noise is unmistakeable hopefully.
  - lukan 1mo ago
    That would be very annoying and mess with recording sound. And yes, a LED could be covered, but then this would be a crime in areas where covert recording is not allowed (e.g. public spaces).
- hluska 1mo ago
  This sentence doesn’t make sense so I may be reading it wrong. But in sunlight the red LED is totally invisible. It’s too bad because they’re genuinely a good idea for me but I feel like a creep for even considering a pair.
  - lukan 1mo ago
    It is not invisible in sunlight, if it is bright enough. Nowdays one can make that adaptive to surrounding light.
- sorokod 1mo ago
  Shouldn't blind people be accommodated too?

red_admiral 1mo ago

There's news articles already about women realising they were recorded without their consent and are now on TikTok or something. Just waiting for the first lawsuit against Meta about that, hopefully it kills the idea.

paul7986 1mo ago
I like smart glasses as they are useful for quickly capturing life's moments (friends/family/experiences) and learning more about the world around you. When i did some solo traveling in Berlin i learned a lot about things I was seeing thru my glasses. I think Apple if and when releases their smart glasses they could/should add a privacy feature. The feature would anonymize and or randomize all strangers faces in the pics and vids you take who are not in your network (Apple already knows many faces in your network now). Though Apple may never release such glasses but Google via Samsung will purportedly be releasing theirs this fall.
- Frieren 1mo ago
  > Though Apple may never release such glasses but Google via Samsung will purportedly be releasing theirs this fall. The old "let's break the law as much and as blatantly as possible, our lawyers will delay any punishment until so many people has the product that is not politically viable to stop it". Let's start to put into prison CEOs that have broken the law, I do not care if millions use Facebook. It facilitated a genocide that is a crime against humanity. Let's tech them a lesson so they stop ignoring the law. And it should be an exemplary prison sentence, not just a couple of years that they spend at home.
  - peter_stokes 1mo ago
    The guy who was honestly providing his experience using smart glasses with his family and how they could be improved to be more privacy-conscious. You then went on a rant about how CEOs should be jailed because their products facilitated a genocide? How does this have to do with the parent? It's not even clear that these smart glasses are illegal (I suppose we'll see the results of the criminal complaint)? I hope you are okay man...