I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too.
I agree somewhat, but I think it depends on the location as to how quickly people would react, and this kind of thing is almost expected in outdoor spaces, so the parameters seem different. Also, doing this with a camera phone needs intentionality from the person recording - they have to want to keep recording enough to keep doing it. Camera glasses just don't have that kind of friction, and it would be similarly easy to forget to stop them.
On the company side, while I think most people would expect that camera phone video does end up on social media eventually, it feels different when a company whose entire business is advertising and tracking is creating a product with passive, easy to forget and somewhat covert data collection.
The difference between a phone and smart glasses is that someone filming with a phone in their hand is actually more noticeable than someone walking around a venue wearing smart glasses, which look like regular glasses.
The point is that, if they wanted to, someone could enter a venue wearing a brooch, a pendant, or some other item attached to their body that records video. If the object – whatever it may be – is not easily identifiable as a video-recording device, then the privacy violation is real regardless of the device.
The problem is that here we’re focusing on the device’s form factor rather than its purpose. It’s a bit like criticizing knives because they can kill, even though they’re used for cooking. The problem isn’t banning filming; it’s that such acts must be punishable by law. Similarly, facial recognition should be prohibited not only when used with glasses but for any type of recording, because it violates everyone’s privacy to help catch a few criminals. It’s disproportionately unfair and undermines the freedom of all of us.
Comments
I feel like it can be both.
I agree somewhat, but I think it depends on the location as to how quickly people would react, and this kind of thing is almost expected in outdoor spaces, so the parameters seem different. Also, doing this with a camera phone needs intentionality from the person recording - they have to want to keep recording enough to keep doing it. Camera glasses just don't have that kind of friction, and it would be similarly easy to forget to stop them.
On the company side, while I think most people would expect that camera phone video does end up on social media eventually, it feels different when a company whose entire business is advertising and tracking is creating a product with passive, easy to forget and somewhat covert data collection.
The difference between a phone and smart glasses is that someone filming with a phone in their hand is actually more noticeable than someone walking around a venue wearing smart glasses, which look like regular glasses.
The point is that, if they wanted to, someone could enter a venue wearing a brooch, a pendant, or some other item attached to their body that records video. If the object – whatever it may be – is not easily identifiable as a video-recording device, then the privacy violation is real regardless of the device.
The problem is that here we’re focusing on the device’s form factor rather than its purpose. It’s a bit like criticizing knives because they can kill, even though they’re used for cooking. The problem isn’t banning filming; it’s that such acts must be punishable by law. Similarly, facial recognition should be prohibited not only when used with glasses but for any type of recording, because it violates everyone’s privacy to help catch a few criminals. It’s disproportionately unfair and undermines the freedom of all of us.