Why isn't the publishing of the captured video banned? If you want to upload content involving someone else (not just in the background) in it then you should need consent.
The point is if youâre recording with a handheld device at least you can ensure there is some level of awareness to those around who can duck/signal they donât want to be in it.
If it were made illegal then news journalism, documentary filmmaking, sports broadcasting (crowds), street photography, and police-body camera footage would become extinct almost overnight.
Laws will seldom work 100% of the time, but I profoundly disagree with your implied attitude. "They don't cover this future case, so we shouldn't do anything now".
A temporary measure.
Knowing the current regime they will use years & millions on comittees, reports, reviews, expert groups and all kinds of bureaucratic wage labor I don't have english vocabulary for. And then, the EU, which we a not a member of, decides everything behind our back.
Norway chose to not join the EU but still be subject to many of its requirements. It can still change that - it can still seek to become a proper member, or it can seek to cut ties.
Exactly. Either way would be better. We have no vote but all the rules.
A couple of examples:
* We have one of the worlds best bottle deposit systems. Now that the EU has made their rules. Norway has to spend tons of money regressing to a common system. [1]
* Norway has good cleansing facilities for water/sewage. Now that the EU has made their decisions - based on research from urban regions of southern europe and the pollution of rivers - sparsely populated fjord communes of Norway dont know how the fuck they will pay for upgrades to their already modern systems, other than passing it on to an already strained population. [2] (Norwegiens are not generally rich. Our state is rich. They use the money for investing in anything but Norway. Manhatten real estate is good. Norwegian roads, hospitals and elder care are not).
It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".
Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.
I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.
Itâs easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someoneâs looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.
There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.
Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.
Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.
People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.
Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.
Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.
Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhereâin fact thatâs how life works in general.
Just because we havenât yet beaten ALPRs doesnât mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.
One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.
Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.
If you donât like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. Itâs like telling doctors not to bother because everyoneâs eventually going to die anyway.
I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.
I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.
Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.
> The ban could apply to parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, daycare centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events.
True - many places where photography and video recording by people and organizations is already done on a broad scale with both smartphones and infrastructure cameras.
> "We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge, photographed, or filmed in places and situations where they are accustomed to not being monitored"
This seems similar to how much of East Asia requires a âclickâ sound from camera apps, to prevent surreptitious photos, or how some US states require both parties to consent when recording audio of a conversation. Thereâs plenty of precedent for privacy laws related to public recording, across the world. And they donât have to be perfectâthe goal is to limit access to casual snooping and creepshots, and to ensure that those who habitually violate privacy can be prosecuted if caught.
Just because youâre in public doesnât mean itâs ok to take secret upskirt photos, film in the gym showers, etc. There actually is a certain level of privacy expected in public.
Banning harmful behavior (like secretly recording someone) is pretty defensible and not all that controversial. Banning the mere possession of generic tools that could potentially be used to engage in harmful behavior is a lot more dubious. It requires infringing the rights of a bunch of innocent people merely because they might use that freedom to do something wrong.
I agree in part. Rather than a full ban, it makes more sense to require manufacturers to implement obnoxiously obvious âtellsâ (blinding LED plus sound perhaps), and to ban commercial businesses that remove these features. No need to ban possession. For DIY creepers a ban on the behavior is enough, they will get caught eventually.
The point is to ban widespread normalization of tools that make invasion of privacy easy. You can go find a shirt button spy cam on Aliexpress, but if you get caught wearing it then everyone knows what youâre up to. Wearing one in certain places could be taken as criminal intent.
(I donât think restrictions like this would work in the US without an amendment, but I think weâre long overdue for a privacy amendment to clarify some things.)
Only issue with that is that enforcing it requires you to make open source smart glasses illegal, since open source software cannot be used to coerce users the way closed-source software can.
It's illegal to transmit without a suitable radio license or sell products that do, but they still don't forbid the sale of electronic components you could build a radio with. In that case, they just confiscate your radio and fine you, if you're caught transmitting without a suitable license.
I suspect that in practice, the "or sell products that do" part of that has had a significant negative impact on the market for open source radio firmware. But I'm not an expert in this space. How difficult is it to flash the modem on a modern cell phone? Why has nobody built a garage door opener app for Fairphone?
Perfect enforcement isnât required, the intent is to prevent normalization. Laws against murder donât prevent all murders either.
Someone wearing weird 3D printed camera glasses is going to be obvious. Someone with the skill to disassemble a tiny glued together smart glass frame, bypass any hardware protections, and flash a custom OS will be rare, and theyâll get caught anyway when they âaccidentallyâ wander into the womenâs locker for the third time.
I don't want people to have to know how to solder to install an open source OS on their personal computing device. That sort of thing should be normal and easy.
So yeah, I guess as long as you're okay with a law like that potentially becoming very easy to bypass then I don't have a problem with it. But I think once things start going down that path, most people aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it at that; they'll hear about a bypass and start pushing to restrict the freedoms that enabled it.
> This seems similar to how much of SE Asia requires a âclickâ sound from camera apps
I live in "SE Asia" - specifically Vietnam - and I've never heard of such a law. I just looked it up and the two countries that come up are Korea and Japan, neither of which are in SE Asia.
I 100% agree with this outlook. People that have ignored encroaching surveillance for decades at this point are finally concerned once we start suggesting we literally strap them to the face of a sizeable chunk of the population.
Personally, I gave up years ago. People don't care about actual privacy, they just care about the illusion of it.
> Norway Eyes Partial Ban of Smart Glasses
I see what you did there.
So a Smart Monocle is ok?
Is it weird that I'd be happier with that? Easier to spot and has a "we're bringing that shit back" vibe that goes well with a disruptive product.
Why isn't the publishing of the captured video banned? If you want to upload content involving someone else (not just in the background) in it then you should need consent.
Thatâs already the case. Same question is why guns are regulated when killing someone is already illegal.
lol what?
The point is if youâre recording with a handheld device at least you can ensure there is some level of awareness to those around who can duck/signal they donât want to be in it.
How can you do that with meta glasses?
Get real man.
If it were made illegal then news journalism, documentary filmmaking, sports broadcasting (crowds), street photography, and police-body camera footage would become extinct almost overnight.
This is short-sighted; smart contacts are viable.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-51137379
Pun intended?
Laws will seldom work 100% of the time, but I profoundly disagree with your implied attitude. "They don't cover this future case, so we shouldn't do anything now".
Do they have cameras and recording?
A temporary measure. Knowing the current regime they will use years & millions on comittees, reports, reviews, expert groups and all kinds of bureaucratic wage labor I don't have english vocabulary for. And then, the EU, which we a not a member of, decides everything behind our back.
Norway chose to not join the EU but still be subject to many of its requirements. It can still change that - it can still seek to become a proper member, or it can seek to cut ties.
Exactly. Either way would be better. We have no vote but all the rules.
A couple of examples:
* We have one of the worlds best bottle deposit systems. Now that the EU has made their rules. Norway has to spend tons of money regressing to a common system. [1]
* Norway has good cleansing facilities for water/sewage. Now that the EU has made their decisions - based on research from urban regions of southern europe and the pollution of rivers - sparsely populated fjord communes of Norway dont know how the fuck they will pay for upgrades to their already modern systems, other than passing it on to an already strained population. [2] (Norwegiens are not generally rich. Our state is rich. They use the money for investing in anything but Norway. Manhatten real estate is good. Norwegian roads, hospitals and elder care are not).
[1] https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/eu-vil-tvinge-norge-til-a-innfor...
[2] https://www.nrk.no/vestland/nye-eu-krav-til-avlopsreinsing-k...
Itâs not behind your back. Itâs what being in the EEA means.
How is different from another device ? Phone, digital camera, etc .. someone can use that for taking the same photo ..
Is it the added convenience of the glasses?
It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".
Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.
Hidden cameras are already illegal in some places, not sure about Norway.
Interestingly, in my jurisdiction open carry is banned should concealed carry is not.
I feel like that is for most places in california isn't it? Open carry is illegal but conceal is not.
I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.
Itâs easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someoneâs looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.
There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.
Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.
Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.
I didn't consent to being recorded in public, so don't agree that we just shrug it off.
People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.
Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.
Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.
Are you talking about Norway, or some other place?
Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhereâin fact thatâs how life works in general.
Just because we havenât yet beaten ALPRs doesnât mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.
One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.
Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.
If you donât like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. Itâs like telling doctors not to bother because everyoneâs eventually going to die anyway.
I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.
I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.
Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.
I don't understand how this question can be asked in good faith?
If you have to defend smart glasses based on a technicality, that doesn't reflect very well on the glasses.
Smart glasses that were clearly designed and visible were odious and shunned, so Meta (et al) have developed covert designs instead.
It's the same as a buttonhole camera used for spying. The differentiator (vs a phone or SLR or similar) is that its primary function is concealed.
> The ban could apply to parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, daycare centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events.
True - many places where photography and video recording by people and organizations is already done on a broad scale with both smartphones and infrastructure cameras.
> "We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge, photographed, or filmed in places and situations where they are accustomed to not being monitored"
... I think we're gonna need a bigger ban
This seems similar to how much of East Asia requires a âclickâ sound from camera apps, to prevent surreptitious photos, or how some US states require both parties to consent when recording audio of a conversation. Thereâs plenty of precedent for privacy laws related to public recording, across the world. And they donât have to be perfectâthe goal is to limit access to casual snooping and creepshots, and to ensure that those who habitually violate privacy can be prosecuted if caught.
Just because youâre in public doesnât mean itâs ok to take secret upskirt photos, film in the gym showers, etc. There actually is a certain level of privacy expected in public.
Edit: corrected SE Asia to East Asia.
Banning harmful behavior (like secretly recording someone) is pretty defensible and not all that controversial. Banning the mere possession of generic tools that could potentially be used to engage in harmful behavior is a lot more dubious. It requires infringing the rights of a bunch of innocent people merely because they might use that freedom to do something wrong.
I agree in part. Rather than a full ban, it makes more sense to require manufacturers to implement obnoxiously obvious âtellsâ (blinding LED plus sound perhaps), and to ban commercial businesses that remove these features. No need to ban possession. For DIY creepers a ban on the behavior is enough, they will get caught eventually.
The point is to ban widespread normalization of tools that make invasion of privacy easy. You can go find a shirt button spy cam on Aliexpress, but if you get caught wearing it then everyone knows what youâre up to. Wearing one in certain places could be taken as criminal intent.
(I donât think restrictions like this would work in the US without an amendment, but I think weâre long overdue for a privacy amendment to clarify some things.)
Note that in parts of the EU it's illegal to walk around in public with lockpicks, spray paint, copies of nmap, or acetone.
The obvious solution is to have them behave like drones - where their behavior is geofenced.
Only issue with that is that enforcing it requires you to make open source smart glasses illegal, since open source software cannot be used to coerce users the way closed-source software can.
It's illegal to transmit without a suitable radio license or sell products that do, but they still don't forbid the sale of electronic components you could build a radio with. In that case, they just confiscate your radio and fine you, if you're caught transmitting without a suitable license.
I suspect that in practice, the "or sell products that do" part of that has had a significant negative impact on the market for open source radio firmware. But I'm not an expert in this space. How difficult is it to flash the modem on a modern cell phone? Why has nobody built a garage door opener app for Fairphone?
Perfect enforcement isnât required, the intent is to prevent normalization. Laws against murder donât prevent all murders either.
Someone wearing weird 3D printed camera glasses is going to be obvious. Someone with the skill to disassemble a tiny glued together smart glass frame, bypass any hardware protections, and flash a custom OS will be rare, and theyâll get caught anyway when they âaccidentallyâ wander into the womenâs locker for the third time.
I don't want people to have to know how to solder to install an open source OS on their personal computing device. That sort of thing should be normal and easy.
So yeah, I guess as long as you're okay with a law like that potentially becoming very easy to bypass then I don't have a problem with it. But I think once things start going down that path, most people aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it at that; they'll hear about a bypass and start pushing to restrict the freedoms that enabled it.
> This seems similar to how much of SE Asia requires a âclickâ sound from camera apps
I live in "SE Asia" - specifically Vietnam - and I've never heard of such a law. I just looked it up and the two countries that come up are Korea and Japan, neither of which are in SE Asia.
I guess youâre right, I always refer to them as SE Asia but itâs technically considered East Asia. Thanks for the correction.
Yeah, lets also ban smart phones, cameras and recording devices just in case.
This but unironically.
Somebody check this guyâs camera roll
Those kinds of comments usually come from either wrongdoers in denial or paid marketeers defending a policy/product...
Apple already did....hehehe...
I 100% agree with this outlook. People that have ignored encroaching surveillance for decades at this point are finally concerned once we start suggesting we literally strap them to the face of a sizeable chunk of the population.
Personally, I gave up years ago. People don't care about actual privacy, they just care about the illusion of it.