Here’s a question I have: every professional meeting I now attend is being recorded & uploaded by seen and unseen AI guests. Even 1:1 conversations between direct managers and colleagues.
That’s a world I don’t want to endorse, but it’s seemingly impossible to opt out and stay employed. Is there anything that I can do to minimize my exposure? Has anyone made it a norm to say “transcription isn’t needed for this meeting so I would like everyone to turn off AI notetaker before we proceed?”
If someone refuses, then you can frame that it limits candor and vulnerability. If they still prefer to have it on, then you can simply be less open with them.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
"arbitrary interference with his privacy"
That is tech companies does not have right to private data through data fusion. We humans collectivly have the right to privacy.
A right to privacy the European Convention on Human Rights which every European country other than Belarus is a signatory to. It is directly incorporated into UK law and in all signatory countries appeals can be made to the European Court of Human Rights.
Some governments ignore it, pretty much all governments have tried to find ways to limit the right to privacy. It has not been terribly effective. As far as I can tell constitutional protections in a few countries (like Germany) have been far more effective.
Lately, a German colleague shared with me why they are so focused on privacy. For the dark events that happened in Germany from 1933 to the end of WW2, they used data from a variety of sources that were available at that time. There’s a serious fear (now more than ever in the past) that if an authoritarian regime rose again it would have access to so much data to persecute minorities or even people with different opinions that it would seriously be a nightmare. This puts often overlooked initiatives like GDPR in a completely different light to me.
I don't object to enforcing borders but at what cost? That's the point here. A another example, the public objections to Flock cameras are not because we don't want to catch thieves, kidnappers, and other criminals, they are that we don't want to do that at the cost of having our movements tracked everywhere we go, and because when that tracking data exists, it is invariably, eventually abused.
Agreed, nobody’s arguing against enforcing border laws. That's a dishonest right-wing canard.
ICE is doing things that have nothing to do with them. DHS has subpoenaed tech companies to unmask people who criticize ICE online, and a federal judge ruled ICE likely violated the First Amendment by sending agents to warn a man over an email.
Hundreds of US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, and most were never charged with anything. Federal judges, including Trump appointees, have found illegal detentions THOUSANDS of times.
Enforcing the law is the OPPOSITE of violating the Constitution.
Targeting specific minorities and political opponents, and detaining US citizens without access to legal representation or their families. I'm not sure how you missed these events which have been widely reported, and are unprecedented and illegal (but with a cowardly lack of any pushback / checks+balances).
These incidents are not unprecedented though. You can finds cases of citizens being mistakenly deported long before orange man ever set foot in the White House.
Interesting that this is the example they've used, as they have a more recent one which was much closer to an oppressive techno-surveillance state (Stasi).
However, I'm not sure how the abuses perpetrated by totalitarian regimes map to regulation such as GDPR, which primarily constrains private entities. Compared to their US counterparts, European governments are not all that more hesitant to use spyware, tap phones, etc. In the same vein, Flock doesn't hold a candle to pervasive camera-based surveillance in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I think the US should have federal privacy legislation and there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the private sector today, but it's a bit more complicated than "GDPR is there to stop the Nazis". It probably fits better into the general culture of distrusting and regulating private enterprise (maybe for good reasons).
If corporations (public or private) have data the government wants, then the government gets it. This can even be used as a way to circumvent tighter regulations on the government; see Flock for an example.
Secondly, it's the corporations that are paving the way here. Yeah, governments are obviously capable of designing and producing their own tech, but if the corporations have already made it? Than it's so much easier for the government to use it.
Even today different German agencies or public institutions are not linked. If you marry, or get driver's license, you have to fill all kinds of forms, maybe get a birth certificate etc, because they can't just ask a different office to give it to them.
As you said, this is so nobody in government can collect all kinds of data about citizens, to do bad things to them.
Some people would like to have, say, a public wealth register today, and the above is exactly why others heavily oppose those ideas.
Good observation and I agree that the German situation is more nuanced, even if it’s not perceived as such.
GP’s argument applies to the design of German state bureaucracy. E.g there exist no unified German identification number but several for different purposes (tax, pension etc.). This is directly motivated from the Nazi regime as GP told us. That’s also why the Stasi is not often cited as an argument because the GDR developed in parallel with the West German state.
I would say that these precautions are not enough to prevent a 21st century authoritarian regime from rising and using data. Most of the interesting data is in the hand of privatized public places (social media). We can see these issues already happening with ICE in the US
Sorry for being ignorant from the other side. What else did you thought GDPR and privacy in general is about, if not to prevent powerful entities from (automatically) messing with your life?
GDPR is a great initiative. However it doesn’t prevent big tech from buying politicians, manipulating people or collecting massive data from individuals.
Look up 'list of gdpr fines in eu country'. For some reason, where I am, a lot of Mayors are fined (as individuals), and also their municipalities as 'entities'.
Also, the national elecricity company has been fined, in various areas, various amounts from 1k up (guess who pays the entity fine?)
This UN declaration doesn’t seem to establish an enduring definition of privacy.
Hayek offers a significant observation that things that work among small orders, like a family, don’t work when applied to a whole city. It speaks to the gap between a single police officer seeing something and a city-wide camera crime detection network.
Part of our present difficulty is that we must constantly adjust our lives, our thoughts and our emotions, in order to live simultaneously within different kinds of orders according to different rules. If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or say our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilization), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it. Yet if we were always to apply rules of the extended order to our more intimate groupings, we would crush them. [Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit]
There is no other solution here if you want to both participate in the modern economy and preserve some semblance of privacy, and even then some idiot somewhere will leak your medical records or family photos.
1. A public profile that is your real self.
2. Throwaway identities.
3. Air gaps
4. EFF[1], IJ, or EPIC membership
[1]EFF is a serious organization, but I would happily pay their $1k or even $5k membership tiers if they ran a larger, more concentrated pipeline of affirmative lawsuits like FIRE and ACLU do. Hire liberty-minded sharks to find bad laws, find plaintiffs, file challenges across jurisdictions, and keep a large docket moving continuously.
For what it's worth IJ and EPIC do this well, but EFF has a bigger profile and the technical bench to make this approach highly effective.
If the OG Google Glass got so much backlash 10 years ago, why should the current crop of recording products face any less hostility when they all pose the same privacy problem?
"We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,"
This is a quote from an internal Meta memo about how they would plan the launch of these creepy glasses. There are too many crises that seem more pressing to a lot of people.
There is already a big backlash with these glasses, they've become colloquially known as "perv glasses" and it's been proposed to make them illegal to use in some places!
Yeah I don't think I like the idea of someone wearing them and looking at me. They can just paint or tape over the privacy light.
There is a path forward though. If they can strip out pictures of people and PII by default from video feed and enforce explicit consent(digitally). People might be open to adopting it. I think only apple kind of has any where near that level of trust.
I think a biggest belief that tech people have in pilled circles at Meta and Google is that " this is amazing why would people not use it?" is dead.
It does not matter if you trust them as long as non technical people do. Because HN crowd is less than 1% or people. People trust apple way more than meta.
I think it's more a case of the HN crowd trusts Apple way more than Meta.
Meta has ~3.5 billion users while Apple has ~2.5 billion users and Meta is one of their top app developers, which suggests people trust both of these companies way more than they should.
You trust Meta to do this unfailingly, without making an exception for themselves which you will consent to somwhere in a 30 page user agreement or a dark pattern in the UI?
That goes against the very soul of their being as demonstrated by everything they've done to date.
If meta actually wanted to sell consumer electronics to people. They have no choice but to actually compete with apple and apple will beat them in the poll "would you buy this exactly same ___ device from Apple or Meta?" at least today in 2026.
For some reason in the last ten years, people have gone from being critical of corporations to favoring them. I think these companies have become so huge, and they have gotten away with so much, that people have resigned themselves to being at their mercy.
Really? I agree that many are resigned, but I see much more skepticism of everything Big Tech companies do today than there was during the Obama administration.
Although, this chart suggests that Google’s popularity hasn’t changed much, which is a bit surprising:
I think there has been a growing failure in identifying fake opinions and accounts from real ones. Who's checking that the people you are engaging with are real, aren't AI or LLMs hired by some 3rd party agency to manufacture opinion about some company or cause?
At the time there were two camps: tech-optimists who saw the value in a device that brought the power of the internet on top of your view of the world, and the other camp who worried about privacy or the "creep factor" and believed that outweighed any potential benefit.
When Google Glass came out that latter group had more sway culturally and more political power to ban such things. They don't have that as much anymore but that could swing back in their favor again
"Tech optimists" is an extremely kind term here. The other group was 'worried about the creep factor' because their opposition were the creeps. This is still the case today.
It is a generational thing. Gen Z grew up with an internet where it was normalized to share your complete life online, create posts under your real identity, and so on. Give it 1 - 2 generations, and perv glasses will be seen as not intrusive.
Gen Z (and Alpha for that matter) very carefully curate their online lives. There is a distinct and appreciable difference between how they act when there are visible cameras and when there are not.
The kids are savvy.
In other words, I disagree with you. I think they'll be more likely to use them, but only under very particular circumstances.
>Gen Z grew up with an internet where it was normalized to share your complete life online
I don't see that. Social media seems to be a Millenial phenomenon. Gen Z hates the internet despite using it. Gen Z uses nicknames rather than real names. Gen Z prefers private chatrooms to the exhibitionism of Facebook
Gen Z is very opposed to perv glasses tbh and we are not generally speaking the same kind of "tech optimists" that prior generations often were. I think you've got your generational stereotypes a little off.
A decade ago, I would have said that's an individual person problem. Though these companies don't understand the word "No" and have already pushed the boundaries to the point that they're all in collusion with each other, resulting in broken privacy.
At least US-side, nothing will change until people start holding their representatives accountable and start voting for people that will actually do something about it.
This wont happen anytime soon, we have a much bigger problem we're dealing with for the next two years.
> nothing will change until people start holding their representatives accountable
Which itself won't change. The term for holding representatives accountable is "lobbying", which the public believes is an abhorrent act!
> and start voting for people that will actually do something about it.
The thing is, who wins an election matters little. There are always exceptions, and we've definitely seen exceptions, but most representatives are there in good faith. However, they are not mind readers. They can't do anything aligned to the people until the people start lobbying to make it known what they want — but the people won't do that because it is seen as abhorrent behavior.
> This wont happen anytime soon
Especially when appears likely that those companies are responsible for making the people believe that it is unacceptable to lobby. They have the marketing budgets and know-how to keep pushing that narrative until the end of time.
I could be wrong. Like when you're dumb enough to eliminate large swaths of the workforce, especially technologically skilled workers, you're risking these people using these same technologies to vote you out.
People know how to game the algorithms presented to them, so it's not as simple as having ad-bucks anymore.
> The term for holding representatives accountable is "lobbying", which the public believes is an abhorrent act!
That’s a misrepresentation. You see plenty of exhortations to “call your representative”, which technically could be called lobbying, but that’s not what people find problematic. The issue is professional lobbying, which involves people paid to lobby, and often involves money or other incentives for the representative being lobbied. This kind of lobbying is not actually focused on holding representatives accountable, but rather on changing their positions.
As such, the above quote really doesn’t have much bearing on how much the public holds, or wants to hold, representatives accountable.
No matter how much you try to apologize it away the reality remains that the public abhors talking to their representatives. According to the 2016 US census on behaviour, only 10% of the public do. Which, conveniently, is exactly the same proportion of the population whose livelihood comes from ownership of a business. You're right to point out that business lobbying doesn't have the same stigma (or more likely when survival is on the line you stop caring about what other people think), but I think the earlier commenter already recognized that.
See also: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Jean Claude Juncker
The issues around privacy are inherent in an internet that is paid for by targeted advertising. If there is privacy there is no way to pay the small amounts for email for example.
If we want privacy, we need an alternative business model.
The Internet was in many ways a better place before data capitalism came along so the likes of Google and Facebook could monetise.
We had email and it worked just fine. You got an account via your ISP or paid a small amount for a separate service and perhaps a custom domain that you controlled yourself. Centralising this with the likes of Google is not progress.
We had more content than anyone could ever consume in a lifetime on the Web even back then. It was mostly created by people interested in sharing for personal satisfaction and perhaps the enjoyment of a good discussion that followed or by organisations that benefitted from sharing that information freely. It wasn't done with a direct profit motive based on metrics like page views. We didn't have endless AI spam designed to host endless auctioned ad spots diluting the good stuff.
So here's my proposed privacy-friendly alternative business model: You don't get to harvest personal data for reasons unrelated to whatever products or services you're providing to willing consumers and if you do then we throw you in jail. I'm pretty sure the Internet would find a way to continue providing the functionality that is actually useful. I'm pretty sure the signal/noise ratio online would be much better too.
No. The only solve is to start voting and voting for people that actually fix these problems instead of bowing to corporate interests over people interests.
it would be interesting to see if the "camera light has been tampered with" 'privacy mechanism' could be remotely triggered by some carefully timed application of electromagnetic energy pulses ;)
Well, cell signal jammers are illegal. I could see the possibility of something like a Meta-produced device that could be set to disable recording by Meta glasses in the vicinity. That seems different in scope. But lol on that.
> ...while they also expect the owners of these devices to use them responsibly and to notify those around them of their capabilities to act within whatever laws their states may have.
Hell, no. They expect you to act as uninformed and oblivious about it as possible so they can scrape the maximum amount of data while the liability is all yours.
Exactly this. Anyone who wears these smart glasses are just selling themselves for a negative return. Like meta should be giving these glasses away given how much data they harvest. Instead they convince rubes and pervs to actually pay for it.
Someone should invest some serious money for a big ad campaign that explains the state of privacy of 2026 to people. From online tracking and fingerprinting to cars and street cameras etc.
Governments could do it. Or tv stations.. (“the more you know..”)
Tell it like it is and perhaps fewer will elect to consume crazy conspiracy theories. And instead make better life choices.
Give it time. I am sure the Israelis, the Ukrainians, and the Russians will be world leaders in this type of jamming technology I have a feeling infrared light jamming cameras and sound frequencies beyond human hearing are going to be key components of this new technology. I’m ready, and so is my checkbook.
As a passive sensor, cameras are essentially undetectable at-range and requires a dangerous and likely illegal amount of directed energy to disable or damage.
The proliferation of battlefield EOTS has made this sort of system a real priority, but we have no anti-radiation defenses against passive sensors. It's likely that a civilian system in that vein will never exist, let alone a military option.
Expected an anti nuisance streamer app by now. Just playing ad reels and copyrighted music above and below human hearing levels. Since algo bots will usually scan that high/low and bury videos for whatever is considered an infraction.
Sadly that's not the case, or at least not in Germany. A judge actually refused to block the sale of the glasses because it was considered that the LED were sufficient warning. Sure, you can still use them covertly and releasing material often requires a waiver, but that's true of smartphones too.
There's a case right now (brought forward by the HateAid organization) arguing that these types of glasses should be forbidden, but I'm not optimistic that they'll succeed.
People in Europe install surveillance cameras all over and threaten with the police when you tell them you don't consent being recorded. When you go to the police reporting the cameras, the police tells you to get a lawyer and open a civil case.
So on the contrary I'd say... you want cameras? We'll go all in.
Depends which Europe, I know its popular US view to treat us as 1 monolithic country but we are anything but that. In Switzerland for example its strictly forbidden to record people privately without their consent, and good luck dealing with Swiss police on spot, they are not that kind to such assholism.
EFF is onto something HN is not generally on the right side of this. The hacker community, to my observation, is deeply divided. Cynically, I think half of hackers have become dissociative and mildly sociopathic in terms of their views of technology.
Tech should benefit people and be open, and trillionaire are not a healthy long term indicator in a stable society.
I didn’t read the post. I didn’t have to. They wanna shift it to you have no privacy anywhere at any time correct?
The tech companies leading the charge are mainly the ad companies in short, the companies that have a cost of acquisition because most people do not and will not buy anything from them and in most cases never will ie.. Facebook, Google and soon the AI model makers.
If you are about to comment on it, why not read the article? Why leave it to chance whether your contribution will be signal or noise?
In the article, EEF discusses the currently emerging issue of not being able to consent to other people's always-on wearable technology in the context of the broader problem of our diminishing ability to speak openly. It ends with a clear message on how to oppose such developments in a constructive, meaningful way.
Tech companies respond to incentives. If the technology exists to create and sell devices that are useful to people and legal, then they'll do it, and people will buy and use them. And that is fantastic - I'm great with tech companies making tools that makes my life easier. I absolutely plan on using the heck out of the next wave of AR glasses for digitizing historical documents so I can have both hands free instad of holding a phone in one. Better audio recording devices? Yes, please.
Simultaneously - I own my words, either written or spoken. This isn't really all that different from copyright, and I'm rather surprised we don't more regularly bring that reasoning to bear on this issue. If I give them to you in a private conversation, then those words are for you to hear. If you record them without my consent, then you're violating my (copy)right. If a company takes those words without my consent, then that company is violating my copyright.
I don't know exactly what should happen to people and companies violating my copyright, but I do remember when it was the other way around a few years back and the RIAA was getting people fined thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per incident. That seems about right.
> There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
As always, scale matters, as does the purpose of the surveillance and the affiliation of the surveilling party. This comment of mine from last month (and the document linked in the footnote) will be good reading for you. [0] Also keep in mind that private entities can be legally considered to be agents of the State... depending on how they and the State are conducting themselves.
> *Apple is an EFF donor. EFF donors do not influence our agenda or our positions.
Oh sure, otherwise why would you emphasize over and over again that Apple makes it harder for law enforcement to extract private data of an individual?
That’s a world I don’t want to endorse, but it’s seemingly impossible to opt out and stay employed. Is there anything that I can do to minimize my exposure? Has anyone made it a norm to say “transcription isn’t needed for this meeting so I would like everyone to turn off AI notetaker before we proceed?”
You can ask someone to turn it off.
"Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
"arbitrary interference with his privacy"
That is tech companies does not have right to private data through data fusion. We humans collectivly have the right to privacy.
Some governments ignore it, pretty much all governments have tried to find ways to limit the right to privacy. It has not been terribly effective. As far as I can tell constitutional protections in a few countries (like Germany) have been far more effective.
ICE is doing things that have nothing to do with them. DHS has subpoenaed tech companies to unmask people who criticize ICE online, and a federal judge ruled ICE likely violated the First Amendment by sending agents to warn a man over an email.
Hundreds of US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, and most were never charged with anything. Federal judges, including Trump appointees, have found illegal detentions THOUSANDS of times.
Enforcing the law is the OPPOSITE of violating the Constitution.
Targeting specific minorities and political opponents, and detaining US citizens without access to legal representation or their families. I'm not sure how you missed these events which have been widely reported, and are unprecedented and illegal (but with a cowardly lack of any pushback / checks+balances).
The parent comment is obviously speaking about what happened in Hitler's Germany
However, I'm not sure how the abuses perpetrated by totalitarian regimes map to regulation such as GDPR, which primarily constrains private entities. Compared to their US counterparts, European governments are not all that more hesitant to use spyware, tap phones, etc. In the same vein, Flock doesn't hold a candle to pervasive camera-based surveillance in the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I think the US should have federal privacy legislation and there's a lot of bad stuff going on in the private sector today, but it's a bit more complicated than "GDPR is there to stop the Nazis". It probably fits better into the general culture of distrusting and regulating private enterprise (maybe for good reasons).
If corporations (public or private) have data the government wants, then the government gets it. This can even be used as a way to circumvent tighter regulations on the government; see Flock for an example.
Secondly, it's the corporations that are paving the way here. Yeah, governments are obviously capable of designing and producing their own tech, but if the corporations have already made it? Than it's so much easier for the government to use it.
As you said, this is so nobody in government can collect all kinds of data about citizens, to do bad things to them.
Some people would like to have, say, a public wealth register today, and the above is exactly why others heavily oppose those ideas.
GP’s argument applies to the design of German state bureaucracy. E.g there exist no unified German identification number but several for different purposes (tax, pension etc.). This is directly motivated from the Nazi regime as GP told us. That’s also why the Stasi is not often cited as an argument because the GDR developed in parallel with the West German state.
I would say that these precautions are not enough to prevent a 21st century authoritarian regime from rising and using data. Most of the interesting data is in the hand of privatized public places (social media). We can see these issues already happening with ICE in the US
Hayek offers a significant observation that things that work among small orders, like a family, don’t work when applied to a whole city. It speaks to the gap between a single police officer seeing something and a city-wide camera crime detection network.
1. A public profile that is your real self.
2. Throwaway identities.
3. Air gaps
4. EFF[1], IJ, or EPIC membership
[1]EFF is a serious organization, but I would happily pay their $1k or even $5k membership tiers if they ran a larger, more concentrated pipeline of affirmative lawsuits like FIRE and ACLU do. Hire liberty-minded sharks to find bad laws, find plaintiffs, file challenges across jurisdictions, and keep a large docket moving continuously.
For what it's worth IJ and EPIC do this well, but EFF has a bigger profile and the technical bench to make this approach highly effective.
This is a quote from an internal Meta memo about how they would plan the launch of these creepy glasses. There are too many crises that seem more pressing to a lot of people.
There is a path forward though. If they can strip out pictures of people and PII by default from video feed and enforce explicit consent(digitally). People might be open to adopting it. I think only apple kind of has any where near that level of trust.
I think a biggest belief that tech people have in pilled circles at Meta and Google is that " this is amazing why would people not use it?" is dead.
I'll trust them when I can inspect their source code and chip schematics.
I think it's more a case of the HN crowd trusts Apple way more than Meta.
Meta has ~3.5 billion users while Apple has ~2.5 billion users and Meta is one of their top app developers, which suggests people trust both of these companies way more than they should.
You trust Meta to do this unfailingly, without making an exception for themselves which you will consent to somwhere in a 30 page user agreement or a dark pattern in the UI?
That goes against the very soul of their being as demonstrated by everything they've done to date.
Although, this chart suggests that Google’s popularity hasn’t changed much, which is a bit surprising:
https://yougov.com/en-us/trackers/fame-and-popularity-google...
When Google Glass came out that latter group had more sway culturally and more political power to ban such things. They don't have that as much anymore but that could swing back in their favor again
The kids are savvy.
In other words, I disagree with you. I think they'll be more likely to use them, but only under very particular circumstances.
I don't see that. Social media seems to be a Millenial phenomenon. Gen Z hates the internet despite using it. Gen Z uses nicknames rather than real names. Gen Z prefers private chatrooms to the exhibitionism of Facebook
At least US-side, nothing will change until people start holding their representatives accountable and start voting for people that will actually do something about it.
This wont happen anytime soon, we have a much bigger problem we're dealing with for the next two years.
Which itself won't change. The term for holding representatives accountable is "lobbying", which the public believes is an abhorrent act!
> and start voting for people that will actually do something about it.
The thing is, who wins an election matters little. There are always exceptions, and we've definitely seen exceptions, but most representatives are there in good faith. However, they are not mind readers. They can't do anything aligned to the people until the people start lobbying to make it known what they want — but the people won't do that because it is seen as abhorrent behavior.
> This wont happen anytime soon
Especially when appears likely that those companies are responsible for making the people believe that it is unacceptable to lobby. They have the marketing budgets and know-how to keep pushing that narrative until the end of time.
People know how to game the algorithms presented to them, so it's not as simple as having ad-bucks anymore.
That’s a misrepresentation. You see plenty of exhortations to “call your representative”, which technically could be called lobbying, but that’s not what people find problematic. The issue is professional lobbying, which involves people paid to lobby, and often involves money or other incentives for the representative being lobbied. This kind of lobbying is not actually focused on holding representatives accountable, but rather on changing their positions.
As such, the above quote really doesn’t have much bearing on how much the public holds, or wants to hold, representatives accountable.
No matter how much you try to apologize it away the reality remains that the public abhors talking to their representatives. According to the 2016 US census on behaviour, only 10% of the public do. Which, conveniently, is exactly the same proportion of the population whose livelihood comes from ownership of a business. You're right to point out that business lobbying doesn't have the same stigma (or more likely when survival is on the line you stop caring about what other people think), but I think the earlier commenter already recognized that.
See also: "We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Jean Claude Juncker
If we want privacy, we need an alternative business model.
We had email and it worked just fine. You got an account via your ISP or paid a small amount for a separate service and perhaps a custom domain that you controlled yourself. Centralising this with the likes of Google is not progress.
We had more content than anyone could ever consume in a lifetime on the Web even back then. It was mostly created by people interested in sharing for personal satisfaction and perhaps the enjoyment of a good discussion that followed or by organisations that benefitted from sharing that information freely. It wasn't done with a direct profit motive based on metrics like page views. We didn't have endless AI spam designed to host endless auctioned ad spots diluting the good stuff.
So here's my proposed privacy-friendly alternative business model: You don't get to harvest personal data for reasons unrelated to whatever products or services you're providing to willing consumers and if you do then we throw you in jail. I'm pretty sure the Internet would find a way to continue providing the functionality that is actually useful. I'm pretty sure the signal/noise ratio online would be much better too.
Hell, no. They expect you to act as uninformed and oblivious about it as possible so they can scrape the maximum amount of data while the liability is all yours.
Governments could do it. Or tv stations.. (“the more you know..”)
Tell it like it is and perhaps fewer will elect to consume crazy conspiracy theories. And instead make better life choices.
The proliferation of battlefield EOTS has made this sort of system a real priority, but we have no anti-radiation defenses against passive sensors. It's likely that a civilian system in that vein will never exist, let alone a military option.
So perhaps “face jail time” is not accurate.
There's a case right now (brought forward by the HateAid organization) arguing that these types of glasses should be forbidden, but I'm not optimistic that they'll succeed.
So on the contrary I'd say... you want cameras? We'll go all in.
Tech should benefit people and be open, and trillionaire are not a healthy long term indicator in a stable society.
The tech companies leading the charge are mainly the ad companies in short, the companies that have a cost of acquisition because most people do not and will not buy anything from them and in most cases never will ie.. Facebook, Google and soon the AI model makers.
In the article, EEF discusses the currently emerging issue of not being able to consent to other people's always-on wearable technology in the context of the broader problem of our diminishing ability to speak openly. It ends with a clear message on how to oppose such developments in a constructive, meaningful way.
Simultaneously - I own my words, either written or spoken. This isn't really all that different from copyright, and I'm rather surprised we don't more regularly bring that reasoning to bear on this issue. If I give them to you in a private conversation, then those words are for you to hear. If you record them without my consent, then you're violating my (copy)right. If a company takes those words without my consent, then that company is violating my copyright.
I don't know exactly what should happen to people and companies violating my copyright, but I do remember when it was the other way around a few years back and the RIAA was getting people fined thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per incident. That seems about right.
They should have quite a hefty fine to pay.
It is legal and moral for me to take a video of someone in public. If I can do it with a phone I can do it with glasses.
A shop having a camera pointed outside is not breaking the law, even if it's hidden from view.
There has never been a requirement for devices to indicate anything to those they are recording. It at most a curtsy.
As always, scale matters, as does the purpose of the surveillance and the affiliation of the surveilling party. This comment of mine from last month (and the document linked in the footnote) will be good reading for you. [0] Also keep in mind that private entities can be legally considered to be agents of the State... depending on how they and the State are conducting themselves.
[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50027322>
Oh sure, otherwise why would you emphasize over and over again that Apple makes it harder for law enforcement to extract private data of an individual?