GDPR trap Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta wearers can be held liable
heise online
GDPR trap Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta wearers can be held liable
A new report: Anyone filming uninvolved third parties with smart glasses or allowing Meta’s AI training loses the household exemption privilege.
Filming persons without their consent is not only BS, it’s illegal and punished with high fines, more if it goes online, even Google in it’s Street View is forced to blur faces and carplates for this reason.
Not in America.
that depends entirely on the situation. many states require consent for recordings, and more states have laws against voyeurism - https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115 - where recording can be a felony.
stop acting like being in public = being a victim to the creeps.
Jessie what the fuck are you talking about?
Those protections don’t exist when the person being observed is in public. Because in America there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. There are very few exceptions to that by matter of law.
it’s really not that simple. I love how certain you are that you know what you’re talking about lol.
https://www.gotaprob.com/signals/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone-with-meta-glasses
https://www.recordinglaw.com/smart-glasses-recording-laws/
“Silent video in a public place is usually lawful because people there have no reasonable expectation of privacy. But capturing the audio of a private conversation is an interception under federal and state wiretap law. In an all-party-consent state, recording that conversation without everyone’s permission can be a crime even if you are standing in public.”
twelve states require two parties to consent.
re: voyeurism laws - where did you read that? because it’s STATED NOWHERE IN THE LAW. You can be hit with voyeurism for recording in public, if it violates those rules, that’s one of the reasons the law exists.
Not in the EU.
osmcamera.dihe.de/index.php?lat=46.5588603&lon=9.…
Ok, but security and traffic cams are not the same, they are restricted to certain areas, eg shops, ATM, etc., there it must be possible to identify the person. They are visible to everyone and avoidable because it, Smartglasses are not, same as you could’t use a hidden cam to cast everyone in the street or use a drone to film people in their houses through the window.
I think these glasses are bullshit.
I think recording people in public without their consent or knowledge is bullshit.
Using them makes you a douchebag/cunt.
That said, I really don’t understand the logic that says the act of recording or uploading videos makes someone a “data processor”.
As far as I can see the household exemption still applies if you are using data for personal use. If you’re uploading videos for some sort of gain then sure there’s an argument you could become a data controller maybe.
But, even so, even if you accept the argument that people become data controllers, as with cctv being used by private individuals on their houses, there is no practical way of enforcing or preventing it.
The point is that when using these glasses, the data is always uploaded to Meta’s servers. If the video feed was only processed and stored locally, I would buy the household exemption. But right now, by using the glasses you are forcing the personal data of the people around you to be processed and stored in a way that invokes GDPR, without the chance to consent.
Also, it isn’t clear that you’re filming them, when you wear those creep glasses.
Hell, you can’t even fly a consumer drone in Germany (or I assume the whole EU). Not because drones themselves are illegal (they aren’t), but because you must implicitly film people and property without their consent in order to operate the drone.