More and more, i see people wearing these ‘smart’ glasses as sunglasses which i find totally creepy and intrusive. Living in the EU, i am wondering how these glasses are even ‘allowed’ in public or may even be sold here. It becomes harder to avoid cause they become so hard to identify. How to deal with this? To what extend is this allowed? (cause apparently it is some way)
Ugh… Movin Facial recognition, what a joke. I put them on the same level of stupidity as those who put Tesla’s AI chip in their brain.
Sad days for privacy and anonymity enthusiasts 😮💨😮💨
I don’t think it’s a big deal most of the time if in public. And private places are always allowed to ban cameras. If you ban smart glasses because of the camera, then you have to ban phones and that was tried and failed in most places. And banning cameras in public or requiring a license to carry one would be a huge hit to freedom overall. All of those things were already tried when portable cameras and then cell phones with cameras were new if you want to research why.
The idea is to allow social pressures to deal with these things. And most of the imagined problems never actually pop up. Like there wasn’t much of a significant increase in illicit photography in changing rooms when cell phones were allowed. The only difference here is that the smart glasses may end up being difficult to differentiate from ordinary glasses eventually. But companies like putting their brands on things, so that may not end up being an issue.
And there have been illicit versions of these things for ages and that isn’t going to go away just because it’s illegal to wear it. It’s already illegal to do a lot of the things people are using them for that you’re likely worried about. Having an additional law for possession is not going to change that very much and definitely won’t balance out the harm caused by disallowing all cameras in public.
If you ban smart glasses because of the camera, then you have to ban phones and that was tried and failed in most places.
A few years ago, some venues here in Copenhagen, Denmark started banning phones, i.e. you would have to place your phone into a small, locked bag for the duration of the show and then when you left the venue, you could unlock the bag and use your phone again. I think that was perfectly allowed.
There are many places that have those rules as I mentioned. For private property, it’s not uncommon, but mostly only in secure locations that you buy tickets or otherwise pay or that have other restrictions to enter. Especially artistic venues where artists don’t want their works recorded. This is mostly for protecting financial interests over privacy, though. It’s not common for stores, gyms, and other locations that are open to the public, even if on private property, where taking photos isn’t a financial concern of the location. That’s pretty rare because it was too difficult to convince people to leave behind their phones or trust a worker to keep track of who’s phone is whose, so it kept people from coming to those places. Instead people often voluntarily keep their phones secure in lockers or keep them in their pockets or otherwise don’t take them out in plain view due to social pressure for privacy, especially in public showers, bathrooms, and changing rooms which were the places some politicians insisted it would end up being a major issue without laws.
What about combatting smart glasses with dumb glasses? It works now and even facial recognition software cannot recognize you if wear a cap and dumb glasses.
Wear them and see if you get arrested
Using a camera on public property in the EU is broadly very legal.
Using a camera on public property in the EU is broadly very legal.
Less and less so; at least here in France and in Germany and also in the UK, which was quite surprising to me. In the EU, the GDRP being another nail in the coffin of the right of photographing on public space and photographing random people in that public space. Most of the cases I’ve heard of in the last few years ended up with the plaintiff winning against the photographer, even if the picture was not exploited professionally.
Smart glasses will raise a new flag and push all rules to the next level of paranoia (rightfully so, I’m afraid) and will then be used as an excuse to remove even more of our liberty to use public space (which is supposed to be ours).
Edit: clarifications.
that would mean the death of street photography. Do you have any sources for those cases?
photographing in public space is still a right. There are exceptions, but they are understandable.
Ainsi, la simple captation d’une image dans un lieu public ne suffit pas à autoriser sa diffusion, surtout si cette diffusion peut porter atteinte à la dignité ou à l’intégrité de la personne photographiée. Le droit à l’image en France se distingue par son approche stricte.
Contrairement à d’autres pays, où la captation d’images dans des lieux publics peut être plus tolérée, le législateur français a choisi de protéger de manière rigoureuse la vie privée des individus.
Par conséquent, toute photographie d’une personne identifiable sans son consentement préalable peut engager la responsabilité civile du photographe, qui peut être contraint à des réparations pour le préjudice subi par la victime
it very much depends on the context.
1. Les limites du droit à l'image Bien que le droit à l'image soit un principe fondamental, il existe certaines exceptions qui permettent une captation et une diffusion d'images sans le consentement préalable de la personne photographiée. Ces exceptions sont généralement liées à des intérêts publics ou à des contextes spécifiques : - Les lieux publics et le droit à l'information : Dans les espaces publics, la captation d'images est souvent permise, notamment dans le cadre d'événements d'intérêt général (manifestations, cérémonies, etc.). Cependant, même dans ces cas, la diffusion de ces images peut être soumise à des conditions strictes. Par exemple, la diffusion d'une image prise lors d'un événement public ne doit pas dénaturer le propos ou porter atteinte à la réputation des personnes présentes. - Les personnes publiques : Les personnalités publiques, telles que les politiciens, les artistes ou les sportifs, bénéficient d'une protection moins stricte de leur droit à l'image. En effet, leur statut entraîne une certaine forme de renonciation à ce droit lorsqu'ils apparaissent dans des contextes liés à leur activité professionnelle. Toutefois, cela ne signifie pas qu'ils sont dépourvus de droits ; toute exploitation commerciale de leur image nécessite souvent une autorisation. - L'usage artistique : Dans le cadre de la création artistique, certaines œuvres peuvent utiliser des images de personnes identifiables sans leur consentement, à condition que l'œuvre ait un caractère artistique et ne porte pas atteinte à la dignité de la personne représentée. Cette notion est cependant sujette à interprétation et peut donner lieu à des litiges.that would mean the death of street photography.
Here in Germany it’s fine to photograph a crowd, but if you stand next to someone in public transit with camera glasses, I don’t think you can claim that exception.
I think you are mistaken. In Germany public photography is legal as long as it is not your intend to photograph/monitor individuals. They can totally be part of the image, just not the focus. Videos are also legal as long as it is not targeted or constant indiscriminate monitoring.
I don’t think other EU countries have largely different laws given how common dashcams are.
I was vlogging in Berlin and there were some turkish street scammers and I caught on camera when sb got pickpocketed and the officers told me that I’ll be getting in trouble.
Police officers? The main issue here is that those laws are about balance. Balance of your rights and the persons’ you are filming. There are some general rules and a large grey area.
In general your vlogging isn’t an issue. However, if you knowingly start recording a specific person e.g. a busker, or in your case a street scammer, things become more difficult - especially because you are vlogging. The expectation that you are going to upload the video makes it unlikely that you are just recording for evidence.
I am not a lawyer. I think the police promarily tried to de-escalate here.
i mean you would be allowed to wear it in germany, but recordings or pictures would only be allowed if the recorded person agrees
Many EU countries have their own different laws about this stuff. The GDPR likely does not apply here because of the exception for “purely personal and household activities”, article 2(2)©.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, anyone is more than welcome to do what they want. I simply noticed how frequently justice decisions started to punish the photographer, whether the photo was destined at some personal use or not, whether it was sold or not.
I’m no lawyer. I simply don’t want to waste anymore of my time, and money, dealing with that kind of shit. It’s not worth it… to me at least but, once again, I won’t prevent anyone else to keep doing photography like if nothing had changed if that’s what they want… I may even sketch them if I see them taking their chance doing that ;)
Which is wild because they shut down Google Glass in the UK because of the ability to photograph and record people without their knowledge. Preemptive bans by establishments, government and the public were followed by Google giving up on the consumer base after a couple months. Privacy and decency is no longer part of this world, it seems.
Is there an expectation of privacy when in public spaces in the EU?
“expectation of privacy” is a US-specific legal standard that doesn’t apply on much of the EU. In many countries, you can’t just record someone without their permission or some other permission, regardless of their expectation of privacy.
what happens if you record say, a tree and someone walks in frame…when what? is it the camera person’s fault, or the one walking.
I don’t know, I’m not that much of a legal expert. My guess would be in most places you’re just supposed to delete it or not use it.
Most answers here are opinions which are perfectly valid, even important, but also irrelevant regarding the actual law.
I’m not a regulator or a lawyer so instead of providing another opinion or false information I recommend checking dedicated structures, e.g. AccessNow https://www.accessnow.org/tag/augmented-reality/ or EFF https://www.eff.org/issues/xr while being mindful both of those are from the US and thus if you are not looking for EU specific article, they are basically irrelevant too. You can also check legal research e.g. https://edpl.lexxion.eu/article/EDPL/2024/2/8 which would be useful to get a better understanding of the current legal situation regardless of suggestions.
FWIW this is me speaking for 3min at he European Commission just few weeks ago https://video.benetou.fr/w/65FQnvrncexbJ1jFNKkMrV on providing and using an open stack for smart glasses, more broadly XR, but again this is JUST my perspective, not the actual law. Overall my rule of thumb is now legal situation comes from nothing, so relying on what has existed before, e.g. seeing smart glasses recording as wearable smartphones is at least a starting point.
Facial recognition street cameras are far more dangerous than these. Sure they are pretty creepy but without rayban you could already insert tiny cameras into glasses to spy on people
EDIT : the only big concern is that they get more popular and that they increased even faster the global surveillance
Well law enforcement already use videos uploaded to social networks, what’s gonna stop them from using videos recorded by glasses once they are in the cloud?
You’re absolutely right but these are mainly a droplet in the glass of global surveillance started by global facial cameras But at the end they are surely going to even more increase this shit
