By the time I am close enough see that puny light you've already recorded me. It's an opt out mechanism, not opt in. Maybe if there was an unobtrusive way for me to prevent recording through a wearable, like a ROBOTS.TXT file, or a universal gesture (a middle finger, or a grimace) to indicate my desire to be erased from your recording, I would consider it. I would also want some assurance that my request is honored. Given how unlikely this all is, I am simply saying "nope" today.
It's fine in situations where consent is obtained in advance; e.g., events.
I should add that I take more pictures than the average person, and used to be a street photographer, so I have been in situations where people did not want their likeness captured. Also in countries where people objected to photography altogether on the grounds that it stole their spirit. I always had to make a decision with my trigger finger, so I was able to apply human oversight. My stance is informed by experience.
Try taking your phone out and start recording when talking to some random people on the street or in shop at cash register, or when talking to policeman etc. and see if none of them will start getting very annoyed or even aggressive - even if it's not (maybe) illegal people won't like it.
People are allowed to be annoyed. If you punch someone, or break/steal their property for recording, there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you. People record others all the time, there is this whole Karen phenomenon that is kinda hard not to know about..
Don't squander your right to record in public on something as mundane and personal as a civilian minding his own business. Record a crime, at least. Otherwise the law may change and you may lose that "right".
I don't like being recorded all the time when out in public or in stores or hospitals or other places or institutions. The thing that I find completly unacceptable is having the recording sent off to meta or google or somewhere to be analyzed and monetized without my consent. Not only do I not benefit from this I consider it a profound abuse of my privacy and autonamy. before all this invasive corporate surveillance being seen in public was a localized and ephemeral experience and privacy laws were adequate to cover this. This is no longer true. Not that I think this will happen any time soon (or ever) because, you know, money; and not enough people outraged about this or that feel safe enought to express thier outrage, but a simple fix would be that if I am not a consenting user of a corporate service like meta or google or ticktock or whatever then that service is not permited to retain or use that (personal) information in any way. So when the service recieves video it must remove or completely obsure any individuals image and audio from the video that are not current users of the service. Better yet and more feasible would be to just flag and delete the video, which puts the burden on the person making the video, where it belongs. Of course this would apply to any and all information conected to all non users of the service. To motivate compliance an automatic award of, let's say, $10,000 to an abused party would probably do the trick. If this sounds extream to you I just consider it a good start.
> there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you
There are, but they are extraordinarly unlikely. People push and shove each other all the time over minor insults and disagreements and almost never end up in front of a judge. Most cops would just say "you should have put the camera down when he asked you to, now stop wasting my time."
I didn't mean that this is ok to punch someone. My point is it will annoy a lot of people and some will eventually punch you. There are many legal things that if you do you are just asking yourself for a problem.
I also think in some countries it might be illegal to record someone either video or audio without explicitly telling or asking for permission. Even at the airport (at least in many I have been) it was not allowed to do video recording
There is a big difference between actively choosing to film, showing you are filming someone and a passive camera always on. The first one can be easily avoided, the second one not so much.
That is a technicality; I object on principle. I extrapolated current capabilities to underscore the argument, because more people will lifestream/lifecast the easier it gets. Tomorrow it may be a neural link.
Then what else have we got left in order to confront those very rude people that film you without your consent? It's pretty clear that the law is not up to the task.
The copy claims the glasses will complain audibly if you cover up the LED, but doesn’t say whether or not it stops recording. It’s also not clear how easily circumvented this is, but they’ve obviously considered the angle.
I'm very deeply concerned about privacy, but a simple thing like an "on" or "recording" light on the glasses could alert people that recording is on.