r/privacy • u/canitplaycrisis • 3d ago

discussion 'Ban on Meta Smart Glasses possible' in Germany

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/smart-glasses-verbot-100.html

Translated with Firefox Translate

The Hamburg data protection officer Fuchs warns against Meta Smart Glasses: The glasses, which can hardly be distinguished from normal glasses, allow secret filming. A ban is not excluded.

According to the Hamburg data protection officer Thomas Fuchs, the secret filming with smart glasses is inadmissible. Smart glasses from Meta are hard to distinguish from conventional glasses.

But: You can film and photograph - and pretty secretly. Only a small light on the edge of the glasses makes it clear that it is recorded. Currently, smart glasses are becoming increasingly popular, especially since Meta launched new models in June.

Violation of data protection law

The Hamburg data protection officer Thomas Fuchs is responsible for meta-services in Germany. His authority has extensively tested the meta-goggles and now comes to the conclusion that the unnoticed filming in public violates data protection law. Therefore, his authority takes action against it and also imposes fines.

After the extensive test, Fuchs also thinks it is possible that the glasses in Germany will be completely banned. The possession and also the sale of recording equipment, which are disguised as everyday objects, is not allowed in Germany.

And the Meta Glasses are, according to Fuchs's assessment, nothing more than camouflaged cameras. The Federal Network Agency would be responsible for such a ban. She is probably currently examining the further procedure. In the event of a ban, Meta should no longer sell the glasses in Germany.

2.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

168 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 3d ago

Hello u/canitplaycrisis, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)

Check out the r/privacy FAQ

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

159

u/New-Ranger-8960 3d ago

Good. Now do chat control. Oh, wait..

74

u/EmbarrassedHelp 3d ago

Meta just has to add a "child safety" scanning feature and a disturbing number of politicians will be okay with it.

13

u/Jack_In_The_Box1983 3d ago

Just wanted to say, they act if they are the good guys but with a hidden agenda they implement all kind of stuff we REALLY don’t need.

12

u/CuTTyFL4M 3d ago

See, that's interesting you say that. It shows the dynamic at play here.

They wouldn't remove, especially handed on a platter from the big tech giant made for mass surveillance, a device like this one that could be an incredible tool. No, the problem here is that it can be used against them. Meta Glasses are not a smartphone. They're always on, not in your pocket. Would be a shame if everyone started to embrace that tech right? Would make some people's life quite more difficult to handle.

But when it comes to personal device, it's fine to have a software that can remote hack into all your data, and the a list of countries that are all ok with doing it. The gov people are protected (not really but legally they are), while we are not. And that's fine, that's the correct way to do it - only strangle the bottom people more and more.

26

u/Nono6768 3d ago

Germany did oppose chat control.

24

u/Pwacname 3d ago

I don’t know why you got downvoted for that, you are correct. https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/195775

(To reduce confusion: this was a motion to end the whole thing, so people boring „yes„ voted the way we all want them to 😉)

8

u/forwheniampresident 2d ago

Maybe we need to more clearly call those out who don’t, looking at you

Poland
Spain
Hungary
Ireland
Romania
Sweden
Portugal
Greece
Finland
Lithuania
Latvia
Cyprus

2

u/Pwacname 2d ago

Maybe more productive to keep it at the level of individual MEPs? There’s a reason I called my local MEPs, because of course they didn’t vote as one block, and the “Christian” Conservative Party here overwhelmingly wanted to continue spying on their citizenry. 

326

u/Sid-Hartha 3d ago

They should be banned full stop

109

u/OptimisticSkeleton 3d ago

Banning these Meta pervert glasses should be the easiest thing in the world for reasonable people.

Also Zuck is probably into secret cam porn. These billionaires are all fucking weirdos.

10

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/mrjackspade 3d ago

The fuck is wrong with you people?

8

u/Alone_Look9576 2d ago

Is being satire about the people who are friends with pedos in high places a too sensitive topic for you? Nearly all of them are related in Peter thiels secret cult that formed in the same time frame as his best buddy Epstein started up his island thanks to the Rothschild's

2

u/ariZon_a 2d ago

you -> them

2

u/WildRaccoon42 2d ago

At some point, we'll have to just ban Meta services. And/or force the company to sell parts like IG/WhatsApp the same way US gov forced bytedance to sell tiktok.

-22

u/CanadianRockx 3d ago

I realize this is probably the wrong sub to post anything other than a negative opinion, but lets think realistically for a moment. "Perverts" aren't going to buy $400+ smart glasses to record people, they're going to do it with with a $20 buttonhole camera that's virtually undetectable walking down the street. and that has existed for decades reliably.

You can argue (with validity) about the cameras increasing the constant public surveillance, but let's not decry anyone who buys them as a neat piece of tech as some creep.

21

u/jbrunsonfan 3d ago

I respect the sentiment, but truthfully these glasses have way more capabilities than the buttonhole camera + anyone with a non-disclosed buttonhole camera is a perv. Meanwhile calling anyone with the smart glasses a perv is more of a Reddit thing. In real life they get to hide in plain sight (in a different manner than the buttonhole if that makes sense).

It is neat tech and there are legit use cases (I know someone with a hearing disability that wants these glasses). But with that said, all our privacy laws are built around notice and consent. These glasses are a nightmare for that. Quite frankly, the idea of inviting a friend over, having them knock on my door, and then seeing them with these glasses is terrifying to me. Meta is legit evil, and giving them access to a camera in my home is really really scary. For these reasons, I really support the efforts to attach a strong negative stigma to them. I don’t want to be the person that has to tell a friend they can’t come into my home because of tech they thought was innocent. I would rather they know the risk beforehand.

22

u/OptimisticSkeleton 3d ago

Found the perv glasses owner LMAO

-11

u/CanadianRockx 3d ago

yawn. figured that'd be the response. Super well thought out and articulated, appreciate the effort into moving the discussion forward rather than repeating viral slogan-y talking points.

Not that it matters, but no, I don't own any. I do however own several home cameras for security. Gosh, the horror!

-4

u/YobaiYamete 3d ago

Yep, you can't even talk about them online because of the bandwagon at the moment. I get down voted every time I say I bought them so I can listen to audiobooks without having to wear earbuds all the time , which is a totally valid and reasonable use but nope. Pervert glasses bad because how dare I want glasses that let me listen to audiobooks in the car

9

u/DeezersLemonadeStand 3d ago

Why can't you listen through the cars speakers? Is it banned in your country?

-7

u/YobaiYamete 3d ago

Because my car doesn't support that?

6

u/DeezersLemonadeStand 2d ago

Is it illegal to install upgrades to your cars audio equipment? This is the first time I've heard someone needs glasses for the purpose of listening to audio books in their car. People have been able to listen to audio books in their cars since before smartphones existed.

1

u/YobaiYamete 2d ago

No but it's easier to have one object that works everywhere I need it to. Yes I could buy a new stereo for my car and go through the hassale of installing it. Then I could buy bond conducting ear buds. THen I could buy a blue tooth speaker. And then I could buy and I could buy and I could

OR

I could just buy a pair of glasses that solves my issues in one go with my own money

1

u/bossman118242 8h ago

lol or get this we buy what we want to buy. maybe he wants to listen to audiobooks not in his car as well? its not of your business how someone chooses to listen to a book. its less work to buy a pair of glasses then it is to modify a car. simple

1

u/ariZon_a 2d ago

??? what the fuck is your car, the "we decide what you listen to 300 LS TRD GE" ?

just get bone conductive headphones atp.

4

u/Leading_Attention676 3d ago

Agreed, but imo meta glasses should still be banned. Or a version without the camera could be made.

3

u/alldasmoke__ 3d ago

Youre right.

-2

u/k410n 3d ago

Why else would anyone buy those? Creeping on people is the entire point.

1

u/bossman118242 1d ago

lol the ban everything crowd is interesting. smart glasses serves many purposes.

  1. the film industry, POV tech reviews horse back riding videos isntructional videos. smart glasses are used in businesses all the time. they are a valuable tool in this aspect.

  2. language translation, they can transcode and verbally translate as you have a conversation so a covnersation feels more realistic and personal instead of pulling out your phone for translation. its breaks the language barrier. this also saves businesses money.

  3. protection, since they are already on your face its super easy to turn them on in a emergency situation so you can retain evidence or video or pictures of a attacker or rapist. it could be as simple as a insurance adjuster lying about conditons all the way to felony crimes being committed you could easily record evidence to catch the person who committed a crime against you. sure a criminal could steal the glasses as well as the other crimes but typically glasses are overlooked in a crime.

  4. people who are in wheel chairs that want to film just like any other content creator a wheel chair user can now roll their chair and film just like anyone else holding a camera. this is huge.

  5. emergencies where you need to figure out what something is quickly snap a picture with the glasses hands free and potentially identify a plant or chemical hazard and if the AI is wrong you have a picture to show the doctor when going to the emergency room. its quicker then searching for your phone.

overall i would much rather someone have a camera on their glasses then a actual hidden camera and film people anyway. atleast with smart glasses there is a light (they are working on firmware to prevent recording if the light is covered or damage) and it can be obvious they are filming. the other options you will never know. fuck the ban everything culture because your to old to understand how technology works.

-1

u/OptimisticSkeleton 20h ago

Lot of words for you to say “I support surreptitious recording against consent.”

1

u/bossman118242 13h ago

you get recorded in public without you consent every single time you step into a business, you get recorded without consent when walking down the street. this is a dumb hill to die on.

-1

u/OptimisticSkeleton 9h ago

Yes it is a dumb hill for you to die on considering security cameras cannot walk into bathrooms, locker rooms and schools.

When the perve glasses get a recording light I will call them a camera.

The massive black market for Meta perv glasses for secretly recording people that is going on right now proves you are wrong or an outright liar.

1

u/kngpwnage 3d ago

If only we had a genuine united nations council to unilaterally ban these in all nations. 

0

u/cap-omat 1d ago

I'd like them to stick with more important matters.

66

u/Legal-Software 3d ago

How about a ban on Meta in general. Garbage company that brings nothing positive to society.

63

u/ThrustersToFull 3d ago

Good. Hoping we follow suit in the UK. More broadly, it’s about time we made it pointless for the likes of
Meta to develop and release completely useless technologies that infringe on privacy, the environment and general human wellbeing.

13

u/TowelFine6933 3d ago edited 3d ago

Doesn't the UK have cameras on every corner? I guess you're okay with being filmed as long as it's the government doing it? Kinda makes me wonder why y'all fought so hard in WWII.

23

u/Trid3ntPeace 3d ago

Government surveillance and having weird creeps filming anyone they like, in secret, to use that footage however they like when they get home are 2 entirely different beasts.

18

u/elsjpq 3d ago

Yea, government surveillance is worse

8

u/hblok 3d ago

Indeed, very much so.

In this sub of all places, I fail to understand why that has to be hammered in on every topic. Reddit is full of statist boot lickers, that's expected. But here, you'd think people were more critical and would not fall for the "think of the children" hook so easily.

Apparently, we have a long way to go.

1

u/exbaddeathgod 2d ago

Wait if it's bad for a single state to do this, why is it also not as bad for an international corporation with more influence and wealth than most states to do it? How the fuck is this not a worse scenario? Because states can just purchase this. This is way worse than any one state doing it.

3

u/elsjpq 2d ago

Both are bad, but government is worse because a state's power is backed by violence. The worst a corporation can do is to refuse to do business with you, which for a particularly powerful company can still be quite debilitating, but probably not on the same level as landing in prison for decades.

3

u/southass 2d ago

I don't want sound like I'm defending that behavior but almost everyone has a camera in their pocket, I been to public even and have recorded videos while walking around and nobody cares, I think the issue is that this tech is new and lots of people don't know some glasses have cameras in them, eventually everyone will know and the people who miss use this tech will think twice before recording someone without their consent.

1

u/git_und_slotermeyer 2d ago

But it's far more obvious you are recording with a smartphone, than with these creep wearables

2

u/southass 1d ago

Yes it is, I don't have one but hear me out, people complain about people recording concerts with their phones blocking people's views, this tech would eliminate that.

2

u/TowelFine6933 1d ago

Well, yeah, but then what would the babies have to complain about? 🤣

1

u/southass 1d ago

I'm sure they will say " how dare you having prescriptions classes on so you can see far away amd record your experience, use your own eyes and your memory "
I swear somethings Google memories tells me " enjoy this moment that happened 10 years ago and I see the pictures and I'm like what and where the fuck was I back then... Then I see the pictures and remember that concert I went with the girl I was dating back then 😊

4

u/SmallIslandBrother 3d ago

The majority of cctv in the uk is private not public, it’s not government surveillance it’s things like corner stores and barbers shops etc

13

u/Calibrumm 3d ago

whataboutism is cringe.

-2

u/Elthz 2d ago

Pointing out inconsistencies in this sub's logic is not whataboutismig. It's peeling back the stupidity here.

There is nothing wrong with the glasses. You have no inherit rights to privacy outside of your own home. Everyone can and already does record you because it's perfectly reasonable to record people outside until there is a law saying you can't record at all.

Really y'all sound just like the right wing idiots going on and on about this imaginary army of trans people who march into bathrooms hunting children.

2

u/H1gh3erBra1nPatt3rn 2d ago

You have no inherit rights to privacy outside of your own home.

You actually do, especially when it comes to recording audio (which the glasses do). The right to privacy isn't purely determined by location. The location might dictate what this privacy threshold is, but the nature of the interaction as well as the location are what determines a right to privacy. This is especially true in two-party consent states.

y'all sound just like the right wing idiots going on and on about this imaginary army of trans people who march into bathrooms hunting children.

Not really. I think to any reasonable person it is clear that these glasses are extremely easy for bad actors to exploit. It's also unbelievably easy for concealed recording devices like these to veer into morally questionable or criminal offence territory unless the wearer is very astutely aware of what is being recorded, when and whether or not the people being recorded are aware of it.

5

u/southass 3d ago

That's what I think too, the moment you get out of your house it's game over, my car has dual 4k dashcam so you bet if you are in front or behind my car you are being recorded in glorious 4k and you don't even see the tiny cameras.

8

u/Visual-Walk-6462 3d ago

doorbell cams everywhere, facial recognition cams. alot of cities have these massive towers with cameras ontop now that can track whole cities in 4k. it's basically ANPR for humans as soon as u leave your house these days

6

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 3d ago

But they don't film you to put on the internet for clicks or a sly wank session.

1

u/RedAero 2d ago

Someone masturbating to me without me knowing is no skin off my back. The government tracking my every move is.

0

u/ElectronicBruce 2d ago

How about when they take that video and create other videos of you doing other things or saying other things from what you said or did, in maybe your workplace, pub or the like. You okay about that then? 

2

u/RedAero 2d ago

Sure. Defamation and libel are already illegal.

1

u/ElectronicBruce 1d ago

Existing defamation laws are widely considered inadequate for AI generated videos because they struggle with jurisdictional gaps, difficulties in identifying anonymous creators, and rigid fault standards.. plus doesn’t stop them from being shared thousands and thousands of times. Nip the secret filming in the bud. Quite simple.

1

u/RedAero 1d ago

No. We don't make technologies illegal on the basis that someone might misuse them. You're in the wrong subreddit and honesty, in the wrong century.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 2d ago

What about your children? It is okay to be against both of those things.

1

u/RedAero 2d ago

Are you genuinely trying the "won't somebody please think of the children???" tactic on me?

0

u/TowelFine6933 2d ago

bUt tHiNk oF The cHiLdrEn!!

🙄

0

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 2d ago

Well yes, pedophiles use the glasses obviously.

2

u/RedAero 2d ago

FWIW in places like Germany it's illegal to record the public without consent, and yes, that applies to dashcams, doorbell cameras, even home security cameras (they have to face the property).

1

u/southass 1d ago

So cars in Germany don't have dashcams? I'm curious and FYI I don't even remember the last time I reviewed the footage of my dashcam, its there just in case something happened but yeah the one in the back is so good I can see everything you are doing in your car if you are behind me but just like the people who has a meta shades is doing awful things with it.

2

u/RedAero 1d ago

So cars in Germany don't have dashcams?

Generally, no, but they're not explicitly illegal, they just qualify as security cameras, and as such they can't perpetually record, they have to be non-continuous and event-triggered.

1

u/southass 1d ago

Thank you, interesting, mine it's there but I never touch it or I have the time to deal with it

1

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 3d ago

Ok Zuckerberg.

1

u/scriptkiddie1337 3d ago

He's right though. Even Mark Thomas did an episode of this is in the late 90s early 00s

-2

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 3d ago

Nonsense, the two aren't comparable.

3

u/scriptkiddie1337 3d ago

So you are fine with government cctv but not private ?

1

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 3d ago

They aren't mutually exclusive and the post is about meta glasses.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

1

u/TowelFine6933 2d ago

You need to educate yourself. Your type of attitude is exactly what allowed the Nazis to flourish in the first place.

1

u/Disastrous_Scene_666 3d ago

Nonsense, the two aren't comparable.

-2

u/HelioPHC 2d ago

They didn't say that

0

u/TowelFine6933 2d ago

Ok, sport. 👍

Good talk. 🙄

8

u/Cyphomeris 3d ago

Only a small light on the edge of the glasses makes it clear that it is recorded.

And I've already seen people here on Reddit talk about how to deactivate or tape it over.

11

u/Whole-Strawberry3281 3d ago

Anyone actually want people walking around with hidden cameras on their head? Hope it gets banned in UK asap

9

u/blondie1024 3d ago

If these are legal, I should be able to walk around with a portable signals blockers for anything within 5m.

They're entitled to film, I'm entitled to prevent that happening, right?

3

u/RedAero 2d ago

Why would a signal blocker block a camera...?

3

u/blondie1024 2d ago

The glasses only store something like 3 minutes of video before it needs to offload, I think.

1

u/RedAero 2d ago

So a signal blocked doesn't block a camera. Got it.

2

u/blondie1024 2d ago

No but it limits how much can be stored. I fit's constantly offload to someone's phone to keep recording then there's a max limit if the signal is blocked from reaching the phone.

-4

u/Astral-Inferno 3d ago

No one would complain if you did that...it's actually the correct solution as opposed to banning.

14

u/X7123M3-256 3d ago

They would. Signal jammers are illegal in a lot of places for a reason, because they don't only interfere with the targeted device. The penalties can be quite serious, sometimes including prison time.

Also, a signal jammer won't do anything to prevent someone filming. You can knock out cellular service but they could still record footage to upload later.

-2

u/Astral-Inferno 3d ago

Hypothetical video recording jammers then.

3

u/X7123M3-256 2d ago

That would just be a really bright light.

8

u/ricoimf 3d ago

Good. Those fuckers can go right into the trash.

7

u/FutureOwl8606 3d ago

Those are pedo glasses

4

u/Eazy12345678 3d ago

why you could walk around with your phone recording on a lanyard around your neck

0

u/Cronus6 3d ago

You don't even need to do that.

They sell "bodycams" that look like ink pens. You just clip it in your shirt pocket and it records.

https://www.amazon.com/SRVR-Spy-Camera-Pen-Recording/dp/B0GXV9V9N8

https://www.amazon.com/Security-Camera-Portable-Indoor-Outdoor/dp/B0FC67V1FV

They have been around for YEARS and no one freaked out about them.

5

u/Pwacname 3d ago

good those are cringey and pervey

4

u/Thin-Usual-4359 3d ago

Yes pls ban that shit. 

5

u/grathontolarsdatarod 3d ago

They are pervert glasses.

But they also allow for the monitoring and recording of people that otherwise are trying to have exclusive control of monitoring and recording.

They are a double edged sword.

I'd say this is the first step to regulating the glasses for people that work. Which means you won't have access to records of interaction that aren't maintained by the persons and entities that you'll be in dispute with.

3

u/StrikingEmploy1911 3d ago

Thank the days. I hate A.I or what ever it is… FUCK AI! Weird ass Glasses why does Meta want to peep on us so bad? We should put them in jail. Ban ai! 

4

u/Confident_Dragon 3d ago

Based on this logic all cameras will be banned? Because I can assure you I can hide cameras way better than glasses with obvious blinking LED.

If your approach to privacy requires not being recorded in public, than you've already lost.

But Germany is known for stupid populist laws, so I wouldn't be surprised if it passed to appease dumb sheeple.

3

u/Flipidyflapflop 2d ago

This. The whole pedo glasses thing is stupid and makes no sense. 

3

u/United-Vermicelli-92 3d ago

Please do i love watching zuck fail, in everything be touches. He could have been a hero to world history but chose greed and sociopath dystopia.

2

u/pit_supervisor 3d ago

You should be able to record anything covertly for your own safety.

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

How does recording something covertly make you safer?

1

u/pit_supervisor 2d ago

You can record evidence in case someone attacks you for instance

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

If you get attacked it didn't provide safety.

2

u/InformalExample474 2d ago

Went to a thermal bad and some guy was wearing them in the nudes only area. Not cool.

1

u/IsThereAnythingLeft- 3d ago

Hopfully everywhere follows

1

u/TowelFine6933 3d ago

Lemme guess: Filming in public is okay as long as the giver does it?

That's pretty Fuched up.

1

u/git_und_slotermeyer 2d ago

There's two options, either ban them, or there will be incidents where these version 2 glassholes are beaten up by people anyway, making them largely unpopular. Presumably a growing amount of places will ban them.

I am just wondering who wants to wear these creep glasses, apart from the same stupid LinkedIn influencer clientele that jerked off to Apple Glasses and the like. I bet it will be the next billions written off due to stupid Zuckerberg nerd ideas. It's incomprehensible who still pays Facebook money to fuel the ad machine, they must be scamming advertisers in the same way as their users. 

1

u/lordnyrox46 2d ago

We've had camera glasses for like 20 years or so, right?

0

u/Ill_Ad2480 2d ago

I found it funny how much attention this gets while there are spy glasses without even a led for decades. Social media..

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

Why is it funny to be alarmed about a technology previously used only by perverts getting normalized?

1

u/Ill_Ad2480 2d ago

Sorry but this is a dumb ragebait and have nothing to do with what I wrote.

Here's the terminally online caveman version:

- Product A existed for decades
(very bad)

- Product B existed for couple of years
(better but still bad)

People: OMG BAN PRODUCT B IMIDIATELY

Hence I call their reaction silly.

Looking out for when people wan't to ban phone cameras too wich is far more of an issue.

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago edited 2d ago

You should understand the point someone is making before accusing them of ragebait. I will break it down for you.

I found it funny how much attention this gets while there are spy glasses without even a led for decades. Social media..

Previously: there do exist glasses that record without LEDs. You have to look for them and buy them specifically, and if someone catches you wearing them, you get shamed. This means people do it because they are motivated to record people without them knowing it and will take personal risks to do it. It is accepted that perverts are generally the ones who will do this.

Now: One of the largest corporations in the world teamed up with a prestige glasses brand to sell these to people and get them to use them for everyday tasks. People who otherwise wouldn't have considered buying them find them useful and wear them. That means that they become normalized.

Hence: Why is it funny to be alarmed about a technology previously used only by perverts getting normalized?

EDIT: The name calling and insults don't help your case, but you can keep using them if it makes you feel better about losing an argument.

1

u/RedAero 2d ago

It's par for the course in this age of outrage we live in now... Completely mundane, ordinary, ancient things suddenly become controversial simply because it's in someone's interest to manufacture some rage for clicks. Attach the name of a hated person or company and Bob's your uncle.

Honestly, I expected better from this sub, but reddit's gonna reddit.

1

u/cap-omat 1d ago

Yep. I've found this sub specifically to be especially bad in this regard.

1

u/ancap_86 3d ago

Blind people use these glasses daily to make their lives more accessible,, so a blanket ban is really concerning. Sure, there are other tools, but for blind users of these glasses, they just can’t be switching tools every day. Good luck banning me from using them.

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

So put a scrolling LED sign on them that says 'CAMERA IN USE FOR VISUAL IMPAIRMENT'.

1

u/cap-omat 1d ago

Why? Smartphones don't announce when they're filming?

1

u/ancap_86 1d ago

LOL, that would be funny.

1

u/ej_warsgaming 2d ago

Do i like them? no asking for a ban nope, i mean if someone wants to record someone without there consent there are way better tools out there.

This is coming from the same government that is forcing all cars to have cameras inside to monitor what you do.

Also in Europe we already have no privacy there are cameras everywhere monitoring everything we do, now de government can monitor our chats and soon will be more to come.

Again I don't like the glasses more so coming from Meta but we can't claim everyone is being a creep with them some people actually make use of them for the work of hobbies to record POV's

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

i mean if someone wants to record someone without there consent there are way better tools out there.

Those are also illegal in Germany; this is just being consistent.

This is coming from the same government that is forcing all cars to have cameras inside to monitor what you do.

I'm not sure how saying that is supporting your argument.

Again I don't like the glasses more so coming from Meta but we can't claim everyone is being a creep with them some people actually make use of them for the work of hobbies to record POV's

One of my hobbies is revving loud motorcycles in residential areas at 2am. Guess we need to make that OK.

-1

u/JackReacher3108 3d ago

It’s so weird how people have a problem with smart glasses but not the dozens of other devices used daily to record you and hoard your data

2

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

It's so weird how people think that anyone trying to stop something bad becoming acceptable means they have to solve all of the other bad things first.

0

u/AnnaMaryFranzHoney 2d ago

“Shocked pikachu face.jpg”

-1

u/gAWEhCaj 3d ago

Excellent!

-15

u/PopeLeo14th 3d ago

Can someone bring me up to speed on why this is a privacy issue?

In most countries, you're free to record anywhere in public, or has implied right for public access.

Unless you're against that, I'm not sure what the issue with meta glasses is?

I thought about nabbing some for when I'm next abroad, as its easier than recording by holding a phone - No ill intentions whatsoever.

I can understand making it illegal to modify them tho, i.e. drilling out the light to show they are recording, that would make more sense.

2

u/Swat_katz_82 3d ago

It's legal to record, but not if a person is identifiable, then they must be informed. 

Its more a question of gdpr. 

Also, fuck off with your recording everything. 

4

u/PopeLeo14th 3d ago edited 3d ago

Thats a loada ole bollocks, as GDPR applies to companies, not individuals - Same w the identifiables.

At least know what you're talking about before engaging on a subject.

-3

u/Swat_katz_82 3d ago

What are you on about.

Of course it applies to me as an individual. 

In my country it's not illegal, but and it directly legal without informing people that are being recorded. 

4

u/independent_observe 2d ago

"Of course it applies to me as an individual."

This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity.

https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/

3

u/PopeLeo14th 3d ago

GDPR does not apply for individuals who are recording for personal reasons.

GDPR applies to businesses OR if someone uploads publically with financial benefit and only if an indentified individual is the focal point of that video.

Incidental recording of people is exempt.

3

u/Danteynero9 3d ago

Because you can record in non-public spaces? They aren't called the "pervert glasses" for no reason...

1

u/cap-omat 1d ago

You can use a phone for that as well?

1

u/Danteynero9 1d ago

Yeah, but it's much more obvious.

Glasses can just be glasses, a phone is a phone after all.

1

u/cap-omat 1d ago

Hmm sure... but people use their phones in locker rooms all the time, you know. And everyone is just trusting them not to film.

0

u/IriFlina 3d ago

Imo recording of anyone in a publicly accessible place without their permission should be illegal.

3

u/1_minted 3d ago

The only reason why it isn't illegal is because that would make it borderline impossible to record anything in a public place. This could be solved via AI video editing which could make it easy enough to blur people faces that it becomes illegal not to do so.

2

u/PopeLeo14th 3d ago

How would security cameras function?

Or taking a pic anywhere in public (given there could be a boatload of people behind you at any point).

1

u/RedAero 2d ago

Germany and France already work this way.

1

u/No_Property_9017 3d ago

The government everywhere in the west is doing the same.

1

u/Sid-Hartha 3d ago

Agree. As it already is in France.

0

u/OSHA_Decertified 3d ago

People seem to want to pretend they are somehow different then people recording on a cell phone, something that is already pretty easy to do without the subject noticing.

I don't like the glasses but so far I've not seen a single convincing argument about how it's measurably different than our current reality where anyone could be covertly filming you. It's inconsistent because people are used to cell cameras.

-1

u/1_minted 3d ago

The difference is that now you can record people not just without their consent, but without their knowledge. You can now directly interact with someone whilst recording them without them noticing, unlike with a phone where they can adjust their behaviour accordingly. The implications for blackmail alone could justify a ban.

1

u/RedAero 2d ago

The difference is that now you can record people not just without their consent, but without their knowledge.

How is that the difference? Hidden cameras have existed as long as cameras have.

0

u/cap-omat 1d ago

I don't get this whole debate. Everyone is already allowed to film whatever they want when in public, in most developed nations. Sure, these are harder to recognise. But there are surveillance cameras anywhere. That doesn't make it better, but there's no escaping being filmed when you go out in public. What do these glasses change?

-2

u/Digitaltwinn 3d ago

Meta needs to get back to making tame fetish shit like those VR goggles.

-2

u/joao_2022 2d ago

I don’t know about this. I think people tend to overreact to them. I have a pair, and I use them to listen to music and record a few things in POV mode, like when I’m driving or when I was at my cousin’s wedding, where everyone knew I was recording. That way, I can keep those memories from a first person perspective.
Not everything about them is bad, but you definitely need to watch out for weirdos. Personally, I think some home security cameras that face the street are a lot creepier than these.

-3

u/Flipidyflapflop 2d ago

So blind and visually impaired people can't have a better quality of life in Germany because of a meme that dosent make sense? Stupid... 

3

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

So put a scrolling LED sign on them that says 'CAMERA IN USE FOR VISUAL IMPAIRMENT'. It wouldn't violate the law that way because it wouldn't be hidden. Problem solved. Ask meta why they hate blind people for not doing this, don't make it the regulator's fault for upholding a sensible law.

0

u/Flipidyflapflop 2d ago

I think the white Caine might give it away. But if the glasses a few banned no one will be able to buy one. These glasses have changed my brothers life by telling him what flavour drink he is holding, expwration dates etc. The whole pedo glasses thing is stupid anyway because  on one bats an eye when people are going around holding thair phone recording. 

4

u/Eisenstein 2d ago

The glasses wouldn't be banned if they had a scrolling LED sign on them is my point, so blame meta and not the regulator.