Facebook Warned Over 'Very Small' Indicator LED On Smart Glasses (techcrunch.com) 112
The Data Protection Commission in Ireland, Facebook's lead privacy regulator in Europe, has asked Facebook to demonstrate than an LED indicator light on its pair of "smart" Ray-Ban sunglasses -- which lights up when the user is taking a video -- is an effective way of putting other people on notice that they are being recorded by the wearer. TechCrunch reports: Italy's privacy watchdog, the Garante, already raised concerns about Facebook's smart glasses -- but Ireland has an outsized role as a regulator for the tech giant owing to where the company's regional base is located. The first Facebook Ray-Ban-branded specs went on sale earlier this month â" looking mostly like a standard pair of sunglasses but containing two 5 MP cameras mounted on the front that enable the user to take video of whatever they're looking at and upload it to a new Facebook app called View. (The sunglasses also contain in-frame speakers so the user can listen to music and take phone calls.) [...] The specs also include a front-mounted LED light which is supposed to switch on to indicate when a video is being recorded. However European regulators are concerned that what the DPC describes as a "very small" indicator is an inadequate mechanism for alerting people to the risk they are being recorded. Facebook has not demonstrated it conducted comprehensive field testing of the device with a view to assessing the privacy risk it may pose, it added.
"While it is accepted that many devices including smart phones can record third party individuals, it is generally the case that the camera or the phone is visible as the device by which recording is happening, thereby putting those captured in the recordings on notice. With the glasses, there is a very small indicator light that comes on when recording is occurring. It has not been demonstrated to the DPC and Garante that comprehensive testing in the field was done by Facebook or Ray-Ban to ensure the indicator LED light is an effective means of giving notice," the DPC wrote. Facebook's lead EU data protection regulator goes on to say it is calling on the tech giant to "confirm and demonstrate that the LED indicator light is effective for its purpose and to run an information campaign to alert the public as to how this new consumer product may give rise to less obvious recording of their images."
"While it is accepted that many devices including smart phones can record third party individuals, it is generally the case that the camera or the phone is visible as the device by which recording is happening, thereby putting those captured in the recordings on notice. With the glasses, there is a very small indicator light that comes on when recording is occurring. It has not been demonstrated to the DPC and Garante that comprehensive testing in the field was done by Facebook or Ray-Ban to ensure the indicator LED light is an effective means of giving notice," the DPC wrote. Facebook's lead EU data protection regulator goes on to say it is calling on the tech giant to "confirm and demonstrate that the LED indicator light is effective for its purpose and to run an information campaign to alert the public as to how this new consumer product may give rise to less obvious recording of their images."
A punch in the nose (Score:1)
Re: A punch in the nose (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, internet tough guy. Although it would be hilarious to see indisputable evidence captured of your assault and battery, you don't have anything to worry about. Your mom isn't going to be wearing these to the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, sounds like you have some stepping up to do.
Re: (Score:2)
to anyone wearing sunglasses with a red LED faced in my direction. Creepiest thing Facebook has done yet.
Noting that (a) a "punch in the nose" is assault, which is a crime, whereas (b) filming someone in a public space is generally not a crime. If you're not in a public space, then "a" is still a crime and "b" may be a crime. Either way both "a" and "b" are dick moves ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But (a) is much easier to get away with now that masks are normalized, especially in places that have winter and where head coverings will soon be in use...
Ya, except in this case, as someone else noted, you'll be recorded via the glasses throwing that punch. Hard to imagine there won't be something identifiable standing that close, directly in front of the camera...
Re: (Score:2)
you'll be recorded via the glasses throwing that punch.
The trick, of course, is to punch so hard that you break the glasses.
Re: (Score:1)
Not that that is a reason to not break the glasses, it just won't theoretically get rid of the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
unless of course they are in a private space where it is illegal to record and thus that evidence will be completely inadmissible in court.
I don't think there as many private spaces in the world as you think there are.
YMMV but if somebody was in a toilet cubicle when I arrive I wouldn't be checking whether their sunglasses have a red LED or not, I simply wouldn't enter.
Re: (Score:3)
YMMV but if somebody was in a toilet cubicle when I arrive I wouldn't be checking whether their sunglasses have a red LED or not, I simply wouldn't enter.
They took all the romance out of dating, didn't they... 8^)
Re:A punch in the nose (Score:4, Informative)
Talk for your country, in mine, if you take a video of me in public you should either have a permission (which you actually may have if it's, e.g., some event where you should expect people to take pictures and videos, and hence you accept the possibility of appearing in someone's video as part of the rules of the event) or a really, really good lawyer because if you do not have that permission, be prepared to be sued, and also be prepared for me to actually get a verdict that sides with me.
I foresee a lot of very interesting court cases in Europe based on these glasses. 'til now, with cellphones, people at least knew they were being filmed and people actually thought twice about doing it to people who didn't agree with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee a lot of very interesting court cases in Europe based on these glasses. 'til now, with cellphones, people at least knew they were being filmed and people actually thought twice about doing it to people who didn't agree with it.
I don't. You fail to understand that people get filmed all the time and the issue is basically universally resolved on the spot out of court. The idea that you know you're being filmed on the phone is a fantasy. You're not even remotely paying that much attention to the people around you to know that.
Hell try this on for size: Hold your phone up to eye height and see if people fall over themselves to get out of the way of your camera, or if people even bother asking what you're doing. The reality is everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, Europe. The sig is getting slightly old... I think I need a new one.
Re: (Score:2)
Video, maybe, but whether audio is allowed is more complicated. In all-party consent states, typically one can't record a private conversation without consent from everyone in it. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that whether the conversation is in a public place does not preclude its being a private conversation. (E.g., you can clearly have a private conversation in the middle of a field.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in my country it varies greatly by state.
Generally, though, you are not allowed to record where anyone has an expectation of privacy. And in several states, including mine, you are not allowed to do an audio recording without the consent of all parties being recorded. I don't think a red LED would suffice for that consent.
YMMV, IANAL, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
to anyone wearing sunglasses with a red LED faced in my direction. Creepiest thing Facebook has done yet.
Noting that (a) a "punch in the nose" is assault, which is a crime, whereas (b) filming someone in a public space is generally not a crime. If you're not in a public space, then "a" is still a crime and "b" may be a crime. Either way both "a" and "b" are dick moves ... :-)
Noting that there are certain honest businessmen, who will do much more than punch you in the nose, and who aren't concerned about your puny laws.
But you are welcome to try recording them in a public place, but please don't.
There are places ostensibly public, where people might go to have business talks, a romantic evening out, or even to hook up with someone. But they don't want you deciding that you have the right to record their conversation and activity.
Or here's another idea - Go into a casino
Re: (Score:2)
Some even have their own cameras? Are you kidding? The last I checked (several years ago) the top ten densest security camera installations in the world were **all** in casinos. Not even the Pentagon has as many cameras per square foot or per occupant. Yes, IAAPSP (physical security professional).
Re: (Score:2)
Some even have their own cameras? Are you kidding? The last I checked (several years ago) the top ten densest security camera installations in the world were **all** in casinos. Not even the Pentagon has as many cameras per square foot or per occupant. Yes, IAAPSP (physical security professional).
A difference without a distinction. If you steal from the casino, see what happens.
Even then - the point isn't how casinos or bars or restaurants have cameras. Or how many.
The point is that there is a specific use for the facebook glasses cameras - to post the resulting video on Facebook or one of their other social media outlets.
The casinos and others have the cameras to serve as documentation in the event of crimes, or to survey hidden areas where criminal activity might occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that a casino is public space?
Nope, but some in here do. That's why I wrote "Ostensibly", which is defined as "in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else"
Not even remotely public, no matter what some think.
Re: (Score:3)
Obvious solution: black tape or epoxy paint.
You won't see any LEDs.
10 years too late anyway (Score:2)
That, and the summary says:
"While it is accepted that many devices including smart phones can record third party individuals, it is generally the case that the camera or the phone is visible as the device by which recording is happening, thereby putting those captured in the recordings on notice."
Sure, someone's phone will be visible while they're taking a video. You'll see someone looking at their phone, perhaps tapping at it. Which is what you see all around you all the time. You that someone has a phone.
Re: (Score:3)
When I was a working as a private investigator, many times I sat there apparently "reading Facebook" or whatever on my phone, when in fact I was taking video. Never once did I have anyone give any indication that they thought I might be recording.
Most people have their phones at an angle that would be recording the floor. It's pretty obvious when a smartphone is vertical and pointed right at you.
(what you need is one of those $5 smartphone camera prisms they sell on Aliexpress...)
Re: (Score:2)
> It's pretty obvious when a smartphone is vertical and pointed right at you.
Unless of course it's in a purse or pocket. Which is why you don't hold it vertical *and in your hand* at the same time if you're trying at all to be sneaky. It can be pointed right at you from any angle. Laying on it's in the "purse" section of a shopping cart is handy.
A place with a raised bar area, an upstairs in a mall, sitting atop some steps outside a building, etc are so perfect because you can point it RIGHT AT the sub
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just carry a squirt bottle full of salt solution ... unless this is completely sealed, destroying the circuitry or charging port is a decent option.
Good thinking... Your destruction of property and assault caught on the camera you're destroying worn by the person you're assaulting. Have fun explaining your way out of that to the judge. :-)
Re: A punch in the nose (Score:2)
I'm sure a product designed to be worn outdoors on a sweaty head isn't going to be impacted by a little bit more salt water.
Squirting salt water in someone's face would be considered assault though, and they'll have you doing it on camera.
I'm sure Facebook's AI would be capable of doing facial recognition too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Masks aren't an issue any longer, some facial recognition companies are claiming 97% accuracy with mask-wearing subjects. Interestingly skin color is still the most difficult part to get right, since variations in color that may be almost imperceptible to the human eye make the camera think that the geometry of the face is different than it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
And what about the ones who cover the LED so you can't see it?
Re: (Score:2)
and in other news...
Sales of black electrical tape just increased by 200% following a YouTube device unboxing video that also included how to block the LED.
Re: (Score:1)
Remember when Google tried this and every public establishment owner had a fit and banned them preemptively? I wonder who Facebook has bribed to prevent that.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the exact same thing won't happen with this product? I wonder what the Facebook equivalent of "Glasshole" will be. Also, do you remember the attempt by Snapchat to release a similar (but more advanced) product? https://www.spectacles.com/ [spectacles.com] - what a wasted use of a prime URL.
Of course, there are about a thousand different form factors for cameras that people might be carrying inconspicuously and using to film strangers surreptitiously. It's not totally obvious why the "glasses" form facto
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is itâ(TM)s different this time. Like so much of the invasive bullshit we now accept as normal and large parts of the population that once upon a time would have been outraged will think this is great. Google lost out by being the first mover here. The technology isnâ(TM)t new this time so you wonâ(TM)t get infotainment blogs and cnn screeching about âoethe end of privacyâ this time around. Without anyone to tell them what to think this will go barely noticed. Until we r
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately for you, you'd only be stupid to commit assault for something so incredibly benign once. Ever considered removing yourself from society? I think we could all do with one less mad violent sociopath around. I recommend a room made entirely of pillows because god knows what you'd do to yourself if you didn't have other random people to punch.
Re: (Score:3)
Creepiest thing Facebook has done yet.
I'm more worried about the "... and upload it to a new Facebook app called View" part of this than the fact that somebody might use this to record in public.
(if you're angry about public recording you should go on Aliexpress and type "spy camera" in the search box before going outdoors ever again)
Re: (Score:2)
A punch in the nose probably won't even break their glasses. But these faceboot glasses are not waterproof, or even splashproof.
Now you know! And knowing is half the battle. The other half is carrying a beverage with a removable lid.
Re: (Score:2)
An amusingly appropriate username for that post . . .
Re: (Score:2)
If you are unlucky, you will be beaten to a pulp or shot.
Re: A punch in the nose (Score:2)
An early review said it was a white led, and easily painted over with nail polish.
Re: (Score:2)
The LED is white, for whatever reason. I suppose if they were Apple glasses it would be black, so it's not the worst possible solution.
facebook didn't learn (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
They learnt plenty. They learnt that a few arseholes on Slashdot instantly judge someone due to a product they buy without ever asking how they use it. They learnt that they sold out completely and there was more demand than supply from Google's product. They also learnt that the faux outrage created free advertisement, and they thankyou for it.
Google learnt the same thing which is why the product moved forward to more active development.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that Google so badly misjudged their prospective customer base for the product. My first thought when I read about the product was inspectors documenting their job, not random guys recording their night on the town. Guess I don't have what it takes to be an executive . . .
Re: (Score:2)
At least they finally figured it out.
https://www.google.com/glass/s... [google.com]
They even have them with safety frames now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if they had learned, then they would have adopted the defacto standard of cameras everywhere: no light at all. Normally, all the cameras that are watching you every day never tell anyone when they're recording and when they're not.
Why would Facebook deviate from what everyone is used to? Probably just to draw attention to their product. They're thinking someone will see your sunglasses, notice the light, and ask "hey, what's that? Can I buy one too?"
But instead, they get regulators. Maybe the next wea
or god forbid, someone crushes it (Score:3)
How hard is it to break a pinhole led from function anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
storm in a tea cup (Score:2)
even if it is a valid design from the user experience point of view, how would you even enforce such a mechanism? ok, we'll do it in all trusted platforms and we will all totally act as if they're 100% secure ... and act totally surprised when they prove not to be and the market is already flooded with hacked devices, ooops. on the extreme you could just outlaw these devices altogether just to discover people will use them anyway and tech will make them undetectable.
our privacy circle just got smaller, like
Re: (Score:2)
Our imaginary "privacy circle" was never that large until the last century and a half. It wasn't until the advent of large cities of over 50,000 that one could actually be even marginally anonymous in public. Prior to that the assumption was that everyone knew what everyone else was doing, and it's still that way in small communities all over the world. Everyone knew my grandparents were 'playing doctor' behind the slaughterhouse, it wasn't a surprise to anyone (except them) when my mom was born only six
Smart Glasses ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So whenever it's turned on, then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think AR implies an always on internet connection. It might be handy, but not essential.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how are you supposed to do that in hardware, given that the decision on what to do with the data is made by software, not hardware?
It's straightforward enough to turn the LED on whenever the camera or camera sensor is being accessed, but as there's no way for the hardware itself to determine the underlying purpose for software to access the sensor, there'd be no other way to create such a distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't require continuous uploading of video. It would kill the battery in minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you compared the size of a mobile battery with these glasses? Have they given the mAh rating for them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect them to be comparable in capacity, tbh.
You weren't expecting the battery to fit inside of a glasses form factor, were you?
The light needs to be obvious (Score:3)
As in, Locutus of Borg's blinding red light obvious.
When cameras are outlawed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, ubiquitous security cameras are also a problem. But one does not normally let in more problems simply because it is hard to get rid of existing ones of a similar sort.
Security cameras generally are in public areas where you are subject to observation by other people normally, or else in entirely private environments which were always subject to potential monitoring - like private security cameras you install in your own home. In any environment where you expect privacy these glasses create a new priva
do what the cops do (Score:2)
and play copyrighted songs whenever you're being recorded in order to get YouTube and Facebook to block or at least de-monitize the offender's videos.
Any 'profit' camera should have large sign (Score:1)
If a person is going to make any money of a recording, then they should have to have a LARGE indicator and sign indicating such. Just because a person is in public, they are not consenting to a commercial enterprise. Video owner should have on file on the internet releases from ALL people in any ad-revenue or money-revenue video. YouTube should not be party to commercialization of non-consenting people.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure there is any sort of universal right not to be roped into commercial enterprise. If you don't want to make money then what do you care if someone else does?
It Also Needs A Co-Located Light Sensor (Score:2)
So that if someone puts tape over the LED the cameras stop. You can also have a monitor or some sort that shows the LED itself is working. Otherwise it is too easy to misuse and secretly tape people illegally.
Sure you might still defeat it by gluing a tiny opaque shield over it, but it would require an unusual amount of dedication to make it work, and careful choice of materials and construction could make even that difficult (e.g. PTFE surface treatment over the LED area).
If you are going to hide a camera
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this is all just hupla, is that right now, you could buy a watch, a tie, or even a button that has a built in 1080p, or even a 4K sensor built into it. They've been commercially available for at least ten years. They're inexpensive, and virtually undetectable. There was a big community dedicated to using the keychain versions on drones back before drones had built in cameras.
what light (Score:3)
some users will be blocking the light anyway so size does not matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Why "some users"? They should include a piece of black tape in the box to cover it up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the sound warnings on AirTags. Easily disabled in just a few seconds with a drill. Stalker's wet dream.
What's the deal with "smart"? (Score:2)
How does this product justify the label "smart" glasses?
I mean isn't it just sunglasses with a camera and bluetooth headphones in the frame?
So Facebook have just redefined English such that anything with a camera is now somehow "smart"?
Re: (Score:2)
Phone in shirt pocket (Score:2)
Is not a phone in ones shirt pocket better than a method that requires the recorder to stare at you like a psychopath?
Illegal in Europe? (Score:3)
Re: Illegal in Europe? (Score:2)
I am pretty sure you are correct, certainly in Germany where even dashcam footage is inadmissible in court, and there is no Google Steeetview
Re: (Score:3)
I am pretty sure you are correct, certainly in Germany where even dashcam footage is inadmissible in court
Unless there's been a more recent ruling that I'm not finding with a Google search, that's not quite right. Dashcam footage gets top German court approval for car crash cases. [reuters.com]
Re: Illegal in Europe? (Score:2)
Ok, that's interesting - my understanding of that ruling was that recording could only be allowed if it could be guaranteed not to capture any images of people! Maybe I now buy a dashcam for my cycling!
Re:Illegal in Europe? (Score:4, Informative)
The laws about recording a person vary enormously by country within the EU. However, storing such recordings for other than personal use is always subject to the GDPR and publication of such recordings as well. Publication is subject to other, regional laws as well. GDPR generallly requires informed consent to use personal information for a specific, stated purpose. For example, if you give consent for use in a newspaper article, it does not imply that the same photo can be used in a name directory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Illegal in Europe? (Score:2)
Journalism exceptions are very wide at least in my EU country, a video blogger would almost always be covered.
Simplistic (Score:2)
Only in private, in a public place people have limited expectation of privacy.
https://publications.parliamen... [parliament.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't sound quite right. You can take photos or videos, but can't share them without their permission.
https://allaboutberlin.com/gui... [allaboutberlin.com]
Why just glasses? Be creative. (Score:3)
Yes, glasses immediately peak the interest, but you could much more easily add (a) camera(s) to a pair of headphones. Nobody would think twice about the led.
Great minds think alike:
https://uncrate.com/soundsight... [uncrate.com]
You'll never notice...
Cover it with tape. Maybe stylish colorful tape. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then, why buy the glasses?
You are conflating the motivations of the wearer with the subject person being filmed/photographed
The risk of being recorded (Score:3, Funny)
A navy seal, a CIA spy, and Bobby walk into a bar and start drinking beer.
The Navy seal says "man my work is so risky, when I get deployed attacking terrorist a single slip up could get me killed!.
The CIA spy says "man that's nothing, my work is so risky that if I so much as say the wrong thing at any time I could get tortured then killed!"
Bobby looks at them both and smiles. He says "You guys are soft. Every day I run the risk of being recorded while walking in public and potentially having a picture of video of me posted on the internet." Bobby then proceeded to order a salad because he didn't like the risk of type 2 diabetes.
The Navy seal and CIA spy were left in awe at this true badassery.
The risk is real folks. We should have big blaring alarms every time someone holds a phone in their hand, next to every security system in a store, next to every CCTV camera in the street, everywhere. Huge warning lights which flash to you that incredible risk you face should you be out in a public place and a photon bounces off your skin, gets deflected through a shaped piece of glass and generates an electron as it hits a p-doped metal-oxide semiconductor.
Size means nothing (Score:2)
A larger LED with less candela will be less visible.
How about a light, a beep, and an RF broadcast? (Score:2)
LED (Score:1)
'putting people on notice' this way is absurd.
The 'smart' user has to ask permission or they can expect the glasses to be gone soon.
What next? (Score:2)
The rule is: (Score:1)
If a viewer of the video can recognize the person or thing, that person or thing must recognize that it is being recorded.
Actually, the rule is: ... that it is ABOUT TO be recorded. As in: Advance warning! WITH an easy way to not agree, AND opt-out being the default!
That is the law, as far as I interpret it.
So no, "smart glasses" can not, and will not ever be legal here.
And if you wear them in public, you WILL get the cops called on you.
(Every American traveling here and taking drone shots while people noti