Item — HN Reader

>"Some people are using the glasses — which look like a pair of regular spectacles — to record people without their knowledge and publish the videos on social media.

The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could be covertly recorded at the gym..."

Observation: The same technology could be used to record business deals, job interviews and other negotiations with consent of the counterparty... In fact, both parties in such transactions could record this way (legally and ethically!) if each has consent of the other...

2 comments

If you want to do that, there is a wide variety of pre-existing recording devices available already...

>"pre-existing recording devices available already..."

Exactly!

People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses!

In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specifically, the lack of consent!) than it does from a specific type of video recording device...

The other devices do not feature plausible deniability when caught. The glasses do. That's the problem.

Well, I consider myself fairly stupid then!

Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"?

In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it?

If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?

And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant?

Because you haven't "caught" them?

Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device?

Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely?

What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?

I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses...

If I may suggest...

If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording...

If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?)

So, to recap, I don't understand.

You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses?

Or is there some other issue or issues?

I don't get it; help me out!

> In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording

You have them.

> then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?

No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device.

> Are we talking about legal accountability

Social and legal.

> What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?

The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go.

> argument.. would have to be applied universally

Yup.

> how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording

Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives.

> You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...?

Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't.

This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others.

> at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones

There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.

I concur that most people, myself included, would not wish for video cameras of any type, overt or covert, be brought in to locker rooms or any other place where there is an expectation of at least some form of privacy.

I am not sure however, that a global public ban on the use of smart glasses, whether enacted by one (or more) countr(y/ies) law and/or by social conscience (of which Meta's smart glasses are but one in a sea of many that are/will be produced by many manufacturers in many countries, present and future) is the right answer...

The argument you present is not persuasive.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that chainsaws (or any other inanimate tool, neither good, nor evil, merely neutral inanimate tools) are "bad" because occasionally they cut off limbs of people, both in cases of accident and by means of a few isolated cases of bad faith actors using them.

It happens from time to time, that's true...

But it's the exception, it's not the rule.

It's the same argument against self-driving cars...

Do they kill people?

Yes, from time to time they do!

But in such relatively low numbers (fractions of a fraction of a percent) relative to the amount of people using them...

It's the exception, it's not the rule.

The same argument could be applied to elevators...

Do they kill people from time to time?

Sure they do!

But again, it's the exception, it's not the rule.

Your argument is an exception, it's a corner-case, it is not the norm, and it is not how the majority of most lawful, responsible individuals in society act.

It is not how you would act, and it is not how I would act.

It is not how most responsible people would act.

In short, it is not persuasive.

Now, I don't mean to offend you in any way by saying that. Certainly you are free to attempt to persuade as many people as you wish of your viewpoint. You could seek political office and with enough political support, perhaps you could get your viewpoint enacted into Law.

And certainly I and millions of others would respect such Laws if you did get them enacted, even though I currently do not own a pair of smartglasses, produced by Meta or any other company, and I certainly would not take them into a Men's locker room with me if I did own a pair!

But you see, as far as your central argument goes, I can't (and it may be just me!) distinguish it from any other argument of the form

Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors Y (who are exceptions, corner-cases, outliers, not the norm of society) to engage in illegal/immoral/anti-social/unethical/unlawful action Z.

You see I've heard that same argument over and over and over again.

Your argument is an example, a specific case of that pattern.

And that pattern, because I have heard it over and over (and over!) again, is simply not persuasive.

This being said, you're entitled to your viewpoint, and you're entitled to seek any political or social action you feel may help that viewpoint!

I will not stand in your way!

But, at least at the present moment, I individually am not persuaded...

You aren't persuaded by what I wrote because I did not attempt to persuade you. You asked me to explain what I meant by "plausible deniability" so I did.

> Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors

I never made this argument. I did, however, give what I thought was a pretty good example of good faith actors behaving badly when there is a plausible excuse for them to do so. (narcissism vs. creepiness)

I don't think you're a human. Whenever someone has misunderstood me this badly in the past, and I've kept talking to them, they turned out to be a bot. I've typed this out for you just in case I'm wrong but I'm not going to respond any further.

I wonder if there should be a provision in the ISO 27001 about not allowing these smart glasses into the workplace

If there isn't currently there will be very soon.