“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF’s investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck’s pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick’s sake.

  • sicjoke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    5 days ago

    I am not a fan of this technology, but as far as I am aware there is not expectation of privacy when in public.

    I am filmed constantly without my knowledge when in public in the UK.

    • Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 days ago

      According to google there are restrictions in the EU about publishing videos of people in public where you make them the focus of the video.

    • einkorn@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      There is a difference between surveillance by a democratically elected government and some random dude though.

      I.e. in Germany homeowners are only allowed to film their own property. The cameras field of view may not reach into public space.

      Also while photography in public spaces is generally allowed, people may demand the deletion of photos showing their face.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Surveillance by a government used to mean they had a random police officer follow you because it was worth the time. Now it’s on mass surveillence which is automated and fed into faulty AI systems flagging. A random dude with a camera doesn’t compare.

        • einkorn@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?

          FFS at least try to argue in good faith.

          • sicjoke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Being against public surveillance doesn’t mean I want to abolish ALL forms of law enforcement/ crime prevention.

            My concern (living the UK, a country with a disproportionate number of cctv) is that a society with extensive surveillance infrastructure creates the capability for abuse tomorrow. Once cameras, facial recognition systems, vehicle tracking, and data retention systems exist, future governments inherit those powers regardless of their good intent (or not as the case may be).

            It’s already happening here. These systems are being used for “behaviour analysis” and tracking of lawful activities like protests and political activity. They his kind of mission creep is a slippery slope.

            There is also the question of effectiveness. The UK has one of the highest densities of CCTV cameras in the democratic world, yet evidence on their impact varies significantly. There is little statistical reduction in inner city crime as a result beyond drug crime (20%), which in my opinion could be handled in a much more positive way.

            I can’t speak for other countries.

            So yeah, I am anti government surveillance.

            • einkorn@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              Oh, so a short sentence can imply a more nuanced opinion on a subject? /s

              Maybe keep that in mind next time before jumping to conclusions.

              On the subject: If you want to enforce laws you have to have a way of knowing about violations. This happens via surveillance. Having CCTV is obviously surveillance but so is to show a driver’s license. Or compliance documentation. So the question is not whether or not you want government surveillance or not but how much.

          • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Ah yes, because there is no space between a surveillance state and “disbanding all forms of law enforcement”

            FFS at least try to argue in good faith.

            You should take your own advice

      • sicjoke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I don’t think this is correct.

        Public photography is generally acceptable in law in France until you publish the images. You risk civil or data protection claims if you publish identifiable images without a lawful basis or consent.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      I think there’s a difference between a world where someone could be recording you at any time and one where corporations are recording you 100% of the time, using masses of willing and paying citizens, in order to exploit you.