The government should immediately ban the sale and promotion of glasses that contain recording capability. The government should explore using existing laws, such as RIPA, GDPR, DPA to take immediate action, whilst beginning the process of new legislation.
I don’t think “smart glasses” are the problem. The term is too broad. The problem is, more specifically, cameras pointed at people constantly, with those cameras being designed to upload 100% of the data to surveillance systems, owned by surveillance companies.
It’s totally possible to have “smart glasses” like GoPro that just record locally. Or ones that connect to a local AI model.
The obligatory response to this is “there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”, and they’re right, and changing that comes with a whole boatload of new problems, like recording public servants/officials.
“there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”
In the US, the judicial system is shifting about that. Slowly! But it is. There is a name for this legal theory which I forgot now. The idea is, once you string together enough individual data points, they enjoy 4A protection. Even if any one by itself wouldn’t rise to 4A level. That means while you don’t have an expectation of privacy, you DO have an expectation the gov won’t use all that data to surveil you without a warrant.
Ofc, that only binds the government. It does NOT bind private co’s! Google. Meta. A million data brokers. Flock! So it only addresses part of the prob. Is it good? Yes! But we also need protection against private collectors. In meatspace, we cannot block Flocks and randos with smart glasses. Or the total data fusion that results.
This is a logical fallacy. I’m not picking on you specifically, because that way of thinking is all over social media. But it is not a useful or productive way to think about the world.
The obligatory response to this is “there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”,
That is a USA-specific legal standard which doesn’t apply in much of the world. While it has it’s upsides it also has downsides and it shouldn’t be seen as gospel, or the only way to do things.
Yeah, I can see a use for smart glasses. Specifically in assisting the hard of hearing, those with partial blindness, maybe even people with other disabilities as well. But the upload of data and cameras recording people without their knowledge and consent is a problem. Not just a problem, but the problem.
But also our laws have a habit of not catching up to the reality of how people use tech to violate the rights of others and that really needs to be addressed. Not against consumers but against tech firms and manufacturers.
The tech companies literally live and die on the idea that traditional governments can’t keep up… and it’s also why the jackass tech barons think they should own and be in charge of everything instead.
I don’t think “smart glasses” are the problem. The term is too broad. The problem is, more specifically, cameras pointed at people constantly, with those cameras being designed to upload 100% of the data to surveillance systems, owned by surveillance companies.
It’s totally possible to have “smart glasses” like GoPro that just record locally. Or ones that connect to a local AI model.
The obligatory response to this is “there’s no expectation of privacy in public places”, and they’re right, and changing that comes with a whole boatload of new problems, like recording public servants/officials.
In the US, the judicial system is shifting about that. Slowly! But it is. There is a name for this legal theory which I forgot now. The idea is, once you string together enough individual data points, they enjoy 4A protection. Even if any one by itself wouldn’t rise to 4A level. That means while you don’t have an expectation of privacy, you DO have an expectation the gov won’t use all that data to surveil you without a warrant.
Ofc, that only binds the government. It does NOT bind private co’s! Google. Meta. A million data brokers. Flock! So it only addresses part of the prob. Is it good? Yes! But we also need protection against private collectors. In meatspace, we cannot block Flocks and randos with smart glasses. Or the total data fusion that results.
Ah, good. The government will finally start obeying the law. I’m sure Edward can come home now.
This is a logical fallacy. I’m not picking on you specifically, because that way of thinking is all over social media. But it is not a useful or productive way to think about the world.
The law is meaningless if it’s not enforced.
That is a USA-specific legal standard which doesn’t apply in much of the world. While it has it’s upsides it also has downsides and it shouldn’t be seen as gospel, or the only way to do things.
Yeah, I can see a use for smart glasses. Specifically in assisting the hard of hearing, those with partial blindness, maybe even people with other disabilities as well. But the upload of data and cameras recording people without their knowledge and consent is a problem. Not just a problem, but the problem.
But also our laws have a habit of not catching up to the reality of how people use tech to violate the rights of others and that really needs to be addressed. Not against consumers but against tech firms and manufacturers.
The tech companies literally live and die on the idea that traditional governments can’t keep up… and it’s also why the jackass tech barons think they should own and be in charge of everything instead.
The governments want this. TIA never died.
Nice, it’s been a solid decade since anyone has mentioned Total Information Awareness. Deep cut.
here
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/07/the-life-changing-magic-of-wearing-smartglasses
Honestly, just get rid of the cameras and I’m fine with smart glasses.
Similarly I have no issues with people using dashcams, but I have issues with dashcams that upload to third party companies without anyones knowledge.