Norway Eyes Partial Ban of Smart Glasses (barrons.com)

98 pointsby pseudolus4 hours ago59 comments

phyzome 13 minutes ago

I'd like to see this framed as a ban on surreptitious recording, not specific to glasses. But it's a little hard to figure out exactly what the parameters should be.

indoordin0saur 3 hours ago

> Norway Eyes Partial Ban of Smart Glasses

I see what you did there.

DonHopkins 2 hours ago

So a Smart Monocle is ok?

pluc an hour ago

Is it weird that I'd be happier with that? Easier to spot and has a "we're bringing that shit back" vibe that goes well with a disruptive product.

acd 21 minutes ago

Hope Sweden copies Norway and bans data fusion for ads data sharing glasses.

laxd 2 hours ago

A temporary measure. Knowing the current regime they will use years & millions on comittees, reports, reviews, expert groups and all kinds of bureaucratic wage labor I don't have english vocabulary for. And then, the EU, which we a not a member of, decides everything behind our back.

tene80i an hour ago

It’s not behind your back. It’s what being in the EEA means.

laxd 13 minutes ago

The "democratic" processes in EU seems rather opaque and hidden from my point of view. Not like the rest of norwegian politics. Just ... here's the latest batch of out-of-touch decisions from Brussel.

someonebaggy an hour ago

comment deleted, fuck dang with a rusty cactus, this is retaliation for giving me a rate limit

laxd an hour ago

Exactly. Either way would be better. We have no vote but all the rules.

A couple of examples:

* We have one of the worlds best bottle deposit systems. Now that the EU has made their rules. Norway has to spend tons of money regressing to a common system. [1]

* Norway has good cleansing facilities for water/sewage. Now that the EU has made their decisions - based on research from urban regions of southern europe and the pollution of rivers - sparsely populated fjord communes of Norway dont know how the fuck they will pay for upgrades to their already modern systems, other than passing it on to an already strained population. [2] (Norwegiens are not generally rich. Our state is rich. They use the money for investing in anything but Norway. Manhatten real estate is good. Norwegian roads, hospitals and elder care is not*).

[1] https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/eu-vil-tvinge-norge-til-a-innfor...

[2] https://www.nrk.no/vestland/nye-eu-krav-til-avlopsreinsing-k...

* It's arguable that the poor state of many affairs in Norway is due to a spoiled bureaucracy and wastefull economy rather than lack of investement.

birdsongs 10 minutes ago

Let's not exaggerate though, we have some of the best roads in the world. I have driven many, many places. Even the small fjord roads on the west coast are well paved, signed, and lit.

And we're building one of the most advanced tunnels in the world (deepest, longest, most complex), between Stavanger and Haugesund.

I agree the state could be less frugal, but it's hardly poverty conditions. It's not perfect, no where ever is. But I grew up in an actually corrupt nation and region. It is not like that here.

For healthcare, I don't know what you mean either. Specialists for non-time sensitive matters can take a while, but anything immediate (cancer, acute emergencies), is immediate access to some of the best healthcare on this planet, for free.

I saw family die in the US for our hospitals and healthcare. You have no idea how bad it is elsewhere if you think it's poor here.

I'm not saying things can't be better. But you're sitting on top of the mountain and complaining it's not tall enough. Look around you.

eecks 2 hours ago

Why isn't the publishing of the captured video banned? If you want to upload content involving someone else (not just in the background) in it then you should need consent.

cleansy an hour ago

That’s already the case. Same question is why guns are regulated when killing someone is already illegal.

logancbrown an hour ago

If it were made illegal then news journalism, documentary filmmaking, sports broadcasting (crowds), street photography, and police-body camera footage would become extinct almost overnight.

eejej 44 minutes ago

lol what?

The point is if you’re recording with a handheld device at least you can ensure there is some level of awareness to those around who can duck/signal they don’t want to be in it.

How can you do that with meta glasses?

Get real man.

stevage 8 minutes ago

It probably also is. But easier to enforce at the time of capture.

vkdelta 2 hours ago

How is different from another device ? Phone, digital camera, etc .. someone can use that for taking the same photo ..

Is it the added convenience of the glasses?

ubercore 2 hours ago

There's a big difference between holding up a phone and taking a picture and just... existing with glasses and having everything recorded without your knowledge.

stronglikedan an hour ago

Is there though? I could walk around with my phone in my shirt pocket just recording everything and no one would be the wiser. And there's plenty of discrete camera options out there, not just smart glasses. Creepers gonna creep.

Trying to ban recording in public is silly. People just need to realize that they're probably being recorded in public. That cat has been out of the bag for many years now.

goatlover 43 minutes ago

I didn't consent to being recorded in public, so don't agree that we just shrug it off.

iamnothere 2 hours ago

It’s easy to see if someone has a phone or camera pointed at you. If someone’s looking in your direction while wearing glasses, you would not typically expect them to be recording you.

tombert 2 hours ago

I think it's because it's more plainly obvious if someone is taking photo if they're lifting up a phone to do it. Someone taking a photo with glasses can be done more covertly.

MengerSponge 2 hours ago

Smart glasses that were clearly designed and visible were odious and shunned, so Meta (et al) have developed covert designs instead.

It's the same as a buttonhole camera used for spying. The differentiator (vs a phone or SLR or similar) is that its primary function is concealed.

wyre 2 hours ago

I don't understand how this question can be asked in good faith?

If you have to defend smart glasses based on a technicality, that doesn't reflect very well on the glasses.

InvertedRhodium 2 hours ago

People care more about the illusion of privacy than actual privacy itself.

Even if we banned smart glasses, we'd still see ever-expanding networks of privately owned cameras that record every movement you make. We'd still have networks of ring cameras and similar devices. We'll still have ever-increasing use of AI to sort and categorise the content.

Privacy is dead. Smart glasses are just an uncomfortable reminder of this fact, and banning them without addressing the over-arching issue is similar to sticking our collective head in the sand.

iamnothere 2 hours ago

Privacy doomerism sucks. You can fight (and win) some battles without winning everywhere—in fact that’s how life works in general.

Just because we haven’t yet beaten ALPRs doesn’t mean I want some dickhead recording me at a hot spring without me knowing. Having both things to deal with is worse than having just one.

InvertedRhodium an hour ago

One mans doomer is anothers realist, I guess. I'm 40, and every year I've been alive I've had less privacy than the one that preceded it and I see no reason to believe that trend will continue. I'm open to compelling arguments if you think I'm wrong.

Maybe if we started with the "strap cameras to the face of the population" plan we'd all have been less inclined to act like frogs in rapidly warming water. Alas.

iamnothere an hour ago

If you don’t like the trend, why are you trying to convince people to stop fighting it? Make it make sense. It’s like telling doctors not to bother because everyone’s eventually going to die anyway.

I would understand if you felt this way privately, in fact I can relate to that.

InvertedRhodium an hour ago

I'm not. Fight away, I enjoy watching someone piss into the wind as much as the next person so long as I'm not standing too close.

Society at large spent a long time ridiculing people with these concerns, are you really so shocked that I am enjoying the moment where the issue comes home to roost? I'm not obligated to be a constructive member of society in all regards.

futune an hour ago

Are you talking about Norway, or some other place?

burkaman 2 hours ago

It's like treating concealed carry of a weapon differently than open carry. I think it's reasonable to say "you can do this in public but only if it's clear to other people that you're doing it".

Targeting smart glasses specifically seems to narrow though, because there are obviously many other ways to carry around a hidden camera in public, like one disguised as a pen in your pocket or something.

monocasa an hour ago

Interestingly, in my jurisdiction open carry is banned should concealed carry is not.

boringg an hour ago

I feel like that is for most places in california isn't it? Open carry is illegal but conceal is not.

someonebaggy an hour ago

comment deleted, fuck dang with a rusty cactus, this is retaliation for giving me a rate limit

thadt 3 hours ago

> The ban could apply to parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, daycare centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events.

True - many places where photography and video recording by people and organizations is already done on a broad scale with both smartphones and infrastructure cameras.

> "We do not want a society where people worry about being recorded without their knowledge, photographed, or filmed in places and situations where they are accustomed to not being monitored"

... I think we're gonna need a bigger ban

iamnothere 3 hours ago

This seems similar to how much of East Asia requires a “click” sound from camera apps, to prevent surreptitious photos, or how some US states require both parties to consent when recording audio of a conversation. There’s plenty of precedent for privacy laws related to public recording, across the world. And they don’t have to be perfect—the goal is to limit access to casual snooping and creepshots, and to ensure that those who habitually violate privacy can be prosecuted if caught.

Just because you’re in public doesn’t mean it’s ok to take secret upskirt photos, film in the gym showers, etc. There actually is a certain level of privacy expected in public.

Edit: corrected SE Asia to East Asia.

Ajedi32 2 hours ago

Banning harmful behavior (like secretly recording someone) is pretty defensible and not all that controversial. Banning the mere possession of generic tools that could potentially be used to engage in harmful behavior is a lot more dubious. It requires infringing the rights of a bunch of innocent people merely because they might use that freedom to do something wrong.

intrasight 2 hours ago

The obvious solution is to have them behave like drones - where their behavior is geofenced.

Ajedi32 2 hours ago

Only issue with that is that enforcing it requires you to make open source smart glasses illegal, since open source software cannot be used to coerce users the way closed-source software can.

iamnothere 2 hours ago

Perfect enforcement isn’t required, neither is a ban on DIY solutions. The intent is to prevent normalization. Laws against murder don’t prevent all murders either.

Someone wearing weird 3D printed camera glasses is going to be obvious. Someone with the skill to disassemble a tiny glued together smart glass frame, bypass any hardware protections, and flash a custom OS will be rare, and they’ll get caught anyway when they “accidentally” wander into the women’s locker for the third time.

Ajedi32 an hour ago

I don't want people to have to know how to solder to install an open source OS on their personal computing device. That sort of thing should be normal and easy.

So yeah, I guess as long as you're okay with a law like that potentially becoming very easy to bypass then I don't have a problem with it. But I think once things start going down that path, most people aren't going to be satisfied with leaving it at that; they'll hear about a bypass and start pushing to restrict the freedoms that enabled it.

someonebaggy an hour ago

comment deleted, fuck dang with a rusty cactus, this is retaliation for giving me a rate limit

Ajedi32 an hour ago

I suspect that in practice, the "or sell products that do" part of that has had a significant negative impact on the market for open source radio firmware. But I'm not an expert in this space. How difficult is it to flash the modem on a modern cell phone? Why has nobody built a garage door opener app for Fairphone?

iamnothere 2 hours ago

I agree in part. Rather than a full ban, it makes more sense to require manufacturers to implement obnoxiously obvious “tells” (blinding LED plus sound perhaps), and to ban commercial businesses that remove these features. No need to ban possession. For DIY creepers a ban on the behavior is enough, they will get caught eventually.

The point is to ban widespread normalization of tools that make invasion of privacy easy. You can go find a shirt button spy cam on Aliexpress, but if you get caught wearing it then everyone knows what you’re up to. Wearing one in certain places could be taken as criminal intent.

(I don’t think restrictions like this would work in the US without an amendment, but I think we’re long overdue for a privacy amendment to clarify some things.)

someonebaggy an hour ago

comment deleted, fuck dang with a rusty cactus, this is retaliation for giving me a rate limit

illusive4080 28 minutes ago

Now, only criminals have nmap in these such jurisdictions.

illusive4080 30 minutes ago

Single party consent empowers those who are underhanded in uneven situations. For instance, the ability to secretly record my employer, who has far more resources than me, benefits me. I personally benefited in being able to defend myself by using single-party consent for audio recording, which helped me both avoid legal trouble and would have allowed me to offer more evidence had it ever come to actual legal action.

There are two sides to privacy laws, and the downside is not often discussed.

sleepyguy 2 hours ago

Yeah, lets also ban smart phones, cameras and recording devices just in case.

iamnothere 2 hours ago

Somebody check this guy’s camera roll

sleepyguy 2 hours ago

Apple already did....hehehe...

lesspassiveobse an hour ago

Those kinds of comments usually come from either wrongdoers in denial or paid marketeers defending a policy/product...

recursive an hour ago

This but unironically.

esperent 2 hours ago

> This seems similar to how much of SE Asia requires a “click” sound from camera apps

I live in "SE Asia" - specifically Vietnam - and I've never heard of such a law. I just looked it up and the two countries that come up are Korea and Japan, neither of which are in SE Asia.

iamnothere 2 hours ago

I guess you’re right, I always refer to them as SE Asia but it’s technically considered East Asia. Thanks for the correction.

InvertedRhodium 2 hours ago

I 100% agree with this outlook. People that have ignored encroaching surveillance for decades at this point are finally concerned once we start suggesting we literally strap them to the face of a sizeable chunk of the population.

Personally, I gave up years ago. People don't care about actual privacy, they just care about the illusion of it.

thangalin 2 hours ago

This is short-sighted; smart contacts are viable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/technology-51137379

Hamuko 2 hours ago

Do they have cameras and recording?

ryanisnan 2 hours ago

Pun intended?

Laws will seldom work 100% of the time, but I profoundly disagree with your implied attitude. "They don't cover this future case, so we shouldn't do anything now".