FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
83% Positive
Analyzed from 648 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#recording#glasses#smart#phones#video#should#things#cameras#probably#those
Discussion (9 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
There have been spy-tech gadgets around for ages that can hide cameras in plain sight such as mini cameras that can be fitted inside a hat that looks like a decal. Mini cameras that look like a broach or shirt button. I think the difference is such gadgets have never been mainstream or popularized by a big tech platforms nor designed to integrate with cell phone internet connections into said big platform that is so tightly integrated with the government.
Possibly so. I get some looks with this one being in a conservative rural area. [1] Thankfully not everyone gets it.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Stink-Dirty-Donuts-Humor-T-Shirt/dp/B...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-i...
>Using technology to secretly record someone else isn't new, but bringing this audio- and video-collecting wearable tech into the mainstream has the potential to make it easier to carry out cybercrime and fraud by lowering the bar to entry for abuse.
could be equally applied.
anyway, once Apple releases their iWhatever this current thing will be swiftly forgotten.
A huge number of disputes in the world are "he said-she said", in that there are no hard records and in those cases, might often makes right (the richest opponent will have the most ability to game the system).
I think there should be a legal distinction between a system that records only for locally-based analysis (or things as simple as personal GPS tracking for maps purposes), and throws the data away, and a system that is recording audio and video to storage. I think a 30-second rolling buffer should be allowed so that a user can press a button to document exactly what's happening without missing so much of the initial conflict reason (although that time value is arguable, maybe even a minute is fine as long as it's a rolling RAM-only buffer, and with proper legal protections to where police shouldn't be able to get that RAM data without the owner of the glasses having initiated recording, which would write the buffer to storage then continue recording from there).
If the user presses the "save the buffer and start saving video+audio from here" then I think automatically the law should require there be a visible indicator of recording. 1980s camcorders had a "recording" LED on the front (you could cover it, but that's not the manufacturer's fault).
If the copyright industry wants to draw a distinction between "streaming" and "downloading" (when both are very much technically the same action, just with software on the receiving end that refuses to do a single action that would differentiate the two) then there should also be a difference between "buffering video for processing and possible future recording" and "actively recording video to storage in real time".
I think these type of devices do have legitimate value outside of the problematic ones. I just wish there was a way to construct a legal framework where such devices could be legally used in a self-defensive way but could also be an aggravating factor for things that are already considered crimes)
Had they been framed like this, and those concerns expressed more loudly, we'd probably have camera covers integrated in all phones now.
Instead we're left to pretend that it's implausible that our Chinese phone takes a peek every once in a while, or that we're infected by spyware which does it.
If you haven't grown with camera phones you've probably experienced discomfort at a camera constantly pointed at you, for a while.
It wasn't a dumb feeling, and it wouldn't be absurd to go back to a saner state of things at some point.