The main complaint and law that HateAid, the organization that lodged the complaint, is using, is that recording devices have to be visible as such. Glasses are not a known and widely accepted video/photo device and therefore affected by that law.
Effectively, their complaint is that a specific model looks too much like normal sunglasses that other people are unable to distinguish them as such.
I imagine Meta and folks wearing these glasses would object to webcam like behavior where it tells you with a LED that it's consuming the video feed. Could be same for taking a picture.
These glasses have a LED. I haven't seen it for real, but I've heard it's not discernible at daylight.
Even so, it might still run afoul of German law. The German radio directive specifically forbids recording devices made to blend in and be surreptitious. The LED would have to be extremely obvious and hard to tamper with.
(It's not even a privacy directive; you're just not allowed to sell devices like that. Baby monitors have run afoul it.)
Blue is "online offers actioned/removed", orange is "legal proceedings initiated against vendors & sellers". That's more than 7 legal actions per day in 2024.
That's not an argument in this (legal) case since the regulation applies at the time the device is sold.
(It just means the applicable law is another one, i.e. the one against recording in secret, which applies regardless of what the recording device looks like.)
[Ed.: it could still be considered a design/manufacturing defect, I guess. It certainly would fail if it were intentionally made such that the LED is trivially disabled. The courts may have to decide if this is in the grey zone.]
"HateAid said its complaint was based on a federal digital data protection law that prohibits the sale of communication devices designed to film people without them noticing."
I think the light makes it pretty clear it's recording? There will always be devices made to suppress this... I'm not sure I want to go down the path of mandating an audible camera click sound like they have for smartphones in Japan
There's news articles already about women realising they were recorded without their consent and are now on TikTok or something. Just waiting for the first lawsuit against Meta about that, hopefully it kills the idea.
What would be best for a video equivalent of that? I can imagine an old school "film rolling" sound playing for as long as it's recording, or some tape hiss or something.
a video equivalent of the mandatory shutter sound, I mean. You might overlook an LED and it can be covered, but a constant loud noise is unmistakeable hopefully.
This sentence doesn’t make sense so I may be reading it wrong. But in sunlight the red LED is totally invisible. It’s too bad because they’re genuinely a good idea for me but I feel like a creep for even considering a pair.
Look at what how GDPR is interpreted in regards to CCTVs and bodycams. You generally do need to give proper Article 13 notice in regards to those recordings. In particular EDPB Guidelines on video recording (3/2019) state that:
> The first layer concerns the primary way in which the controller first engages with the data subject. At this stage, controllers may use a warning sign showing the relevant information. The displayed information may be provided in combination with an icon in order to give, in an easily visible, intelligible and clearly readable manner, a meaningful overview of the intended processing (Article 12 (7) GDPR). The format of the information should be adjusted to the individual location (WP89 par. 22).
> The information should be positioned in such a way that the data subject can easily recognize the circumstances of the surveillance before entering the monitored area (approximately at eye level). It is not necessary to reveal the position of the camera as long as there is no doubt as to which areas are subject to monitoring and the context of surveillance is clarified unambiguously
> The first layer information (warning sign) should generally convey the most important information, e.g. the details of the purposes of processing, the identity of controller and the existence of the rights of the data subject, together with information on the greatest impacts of the processing
While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes), it does give good idea on how unambiguous it should be.
> While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes)
I'd guess that the glasses first transfer the recordings to Meta who process and store them abroad for various commercial purposes. That way of working can never fall under the household or journalistic exemptions. And per GDPR the owner of the glasses is on the hook for whatever Meta is doing, because the owner is (by GDPR) contracting Meta to do data processing for him/her.
I don't think the owner is on the hook if they simply use the service. The individual wasn't the one who truly decided the essential means and purposes beyond personal use, Meta is the one who did that and is thus the controller for that processing.
And I believe in case of European users the contract is between Meta Ireland and user, Meta Ireland is the one who would be the one doing the exporting in that case.
Now if user actually did publish it on Meta's service for broader consumption then they might become controller for that & if initial purpose was that then the initial recording is unlikely to be exempted under household exemption.
> The individual wasn't the one who truly decided the essential means and purposes beyond personal use
The user is supposed to have read Meta's terms and conditions and agreed to them. Of course nobody does that, but that doesn't absolve of the responsibility, it rather means that the user who uploads stuff to Meta does things in full knowledge and willingly or carelessly. It just might make Meta liable as well, because naturally their terms were sneaky, hidden, unclear and probably illegal.
And I'd guess that Meta Ireland has been sued often enough that they have some export clause deep in their conditions as well, which the user should also have read and agreed to.
When you film with a camera you are holding a camera and you're pointing it at people. When you film with your glasses, nothing of such happens. And the ridiculous defense "it has a light" is just that, ridiculous: you can't see a light if you're not looking directly at it and have convenient surrounding lighting.
I'd say it's easier to covertly film someone with a smartphone than with glasses that have a lightup LED. With the smartphone you can just angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
Are we arguing about what the creepiest way is to film people on the streets? Who would want that in the first place?? I don't need encouraging creeps... I didn't hear yet "filming the ICE" as a argument - probably the only one I could understand, but there the problem is not the glasses anyway (nor the solution).
The problem is that even when they're not recording they're still beaming data back to Meta. Which is why I'll continue being a PITA to anyone wearing them where I'm in their field of view. I made a choice long ago that I wanted nothing to do with their dumbfuck products, but now they've decided I get no choice and that's not fucking on.
The relevant legal provision is from §8 TDDDG [1]:
"(1) It is prohibited to possess, manufacture, make available on the market, import, or otherwise bring within the territory to which this Act applies, telecommunications equipment that, by its appearance, purports to be another object or is disguised as an object of everyday use and that, because of these circumstances or because of the way it functions, is particularly suited and intended to intercept, without that person’s knowledge, the non-publicly spoken words of another person or to record images of another person without that person’s knowledge."
IANAL, but this sounds like it's directly applicable.
Violations can be punished with up to two years in prison or a fine.
They lost badly to X a few years back, only to show incredible maturity and grace by quitting the platform afterward .. would love to see how they do against Meta
Ah, I was waiting for this to happen! That will be interesting to follow. From my non-lawyer read of German laws that should be a n easy win for the advocacy group, but I’m interested to see Meta’s arguments
The main complaint and law that HateAid, the organization that lodged the complaint, is using, is that recording devices have to be visible as such. Glasses are not a known and widely accepted video/photo device and therefore affected by that law.
Effectively, their complaint is that a specific model looks too much like normal sunglasses that other people are unable to distinguish them as such.
Article with a bit more detail:
https://www.heise.de/en/news/AI-glasses-Criminal-charges-aga...
I imagine Meta and folks wearing these glasses would object to webcam like behavior where it tells you with a LED that it's consuming the video feed. Could be same for taking a picture.
But then probably fewer people would buy them.
These glasses have a LED. I haven't seen it for real, but I've heard it's not discernible at daylight.
Even so, it might still run afoul of German law. The German radio directive specifically forbids recording devices made to blend in and be surreptitious. The LED would have to be extremely obvious and hard to tamper with.
(It's not even a privacy directive; you're just not allowed to sell devices like that. Baby monitors have run afoul it.)
[German] https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Fachthemen/Datenportal/V...
Blue is "online offers actioned/removed", orange is "legal proceedings initiated against vendors & sellers". That's more than 7 legal actions per day in 2024.
The LEDs can be disabled with a hardware mod.
https://thenewthings.com/p/i-paid-someone-to-hack-my-meta-gl...
That's not an argument in this (legal) case since the regulation applies at the time the device is sold.
(It just means the applicable law is another one, i.e. the one against recording in secret, which applies regardless of what the recording device looks like.)
[Ed.: it could still be considered a design/manufacturing defect, I guess. It certainly would fail if it were intentionally made such that the LED is trivially disabled. The courts may have to decide if this is in the grey zone.]
"HateAid said its complaint was based on a federal digital data protection law that prohibits the sale of communication devices designed to film people without them noticing."
I think the light makes it pretty clear it's recording? There will always be devices made to suppress this... I'm not sure I want to go down the path of mandating an audible camera click sound like they have for smartphones in Japan
There's news articles already about women realising they were recorded without their consent and are now on TikTok or something. Just waiting for the first lawsuit against Meta about that, hopefully it kills the idea.
What would be best for a video equivalent of that? I can imagine an old school "film rolling" sound playing for as long as it's recording, or some tape hiss or something.
A visible red LED like it used to be standard already to indicate something is recording?
a video equivalent of the mandatory shutter sound, I mean. You might overlook an LED and it can be covered, but a constant loud noise is unmistakeable hopefully.
This sentence doesn’t make sense so I may be reading it wrong. But in sunlight the red LED is totally invisible. It’s too bad because they’re genuinely a good idea for me but I feel like a creep for even considering a pair.
It is not invisible in sunlight, if it is bright enough. Nowdays one can make that adaptive to surrounding light.
Look at what how GDPR is interpreted in regards to CCTVs and bodycams. You generally do need to give proper Article 13 notice in regards to those recordings. In particular EDPB Guidelines on video recording (3/2019) state that:
> The first layer concerns the primary way in which the controller first engages with the data subject. At this stage, controllers may use a warning sign showing the relevant information. The displayed information may be provided in combination with an icon in order to give, in an easily visible, intelligible and clearly readable manner, a meaningful overview of the intended processing (Article 12 (7) GDPR). The format of the information should be adjusted to the individual location (WP89 par. 22).
> The information should be positioned in such a way that the data subject can easily recognize the circumstances of the surveillance before entering the monitored area (approximately at eye level). It is not necessary to reveal the position of the camera as long as there is no doubt as to which areas are subject to monitoring and the context of surveillance is clarified unambiguously
> The first layer information (warning sign) should generally convey the most important information, e.g. the details of the purposes of processing, the identity of controller and the existence of the rights of the data subject, together with information on the greatest impacts of the processing
While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes), it does give good idea on how unambiguous it should be.
> While recording by these might not always implicate GDPR directly (as it might be exempted under household exemption or the broader allowances given for journalistic purposes)
I'd guess that the glasses first transfer the recordings to Meta who process and store them abroad for various commercial purposes. That way of working can never fall under the household or journalistic exemptions. And per GDPR the owner of the glasses is on the hook for whatever Meta is doing, because the owner is (by GDPR) contracting Meta to do data processing for him/her.
I don't think the owner is on the hook if they simply use the service. The individual wasn't the one who truly decided the essential means and purposes beyond personal use, Meta is the one who did that and is thus the controller for that processing.
And I believe in case of European users the contract is between Meta Ireland and user, Meta Ireland is the one who would be the one doing the exporting in that case.
Now if user actually did publish it on Meta's service for broader consumption then they might become controller for that & if initial purpose was that then the initial recording is unlikely to be exempted under household exemption.
> The individual wasn't the one who truly decided the essential means and purposes beyond personal use
The user is supposed to have read Meta's terms and conditions and agreed to them. Of course nobody does that, but that doesn't absolve of the responsibility, it rather means that the user who uploads stuff to Meta does things in full knowledge and willingly or carelessly. It just might make Meta liable as well, because naturally their terms were sneaky, hidden, unclear and probably illegal.
And I'd guess that Meta Ireland has been sued often enough that they have some export clause deep in their conditions as well, which the user should also have read and agreed to.
When you film with a camera you are holding a camera and you're pointing it at people. When you film with your glasses, nothing of such happens. And the ridiculous defense "it has a light" is just that, ridiculous: you can't see a light if you're not looking directly at it and have convenient surrounding lighting.
I'd say it's easier to covertly film someone with a smartphone than with glasses that have a lightup LED. With the smartphone you can just angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
> angle it to look as if you're casually holding it or using it normally.
So you film the ground?
Pretty easy to block the led too, though.
Are we arguing about what the creepiest way is to film people on the streets? Who would want that in the first place?? I don't need encouraging creeps... I didn't hear yet "filming the ICE" as a argument - probably the only one I could understand, but there the problem is not the glasses anyway (nor the solution).
The problem is that even when they're not recording they're still beaming data back to Meta. Which is why I'll continue being a PITA to anyone wearing them where I'm in their field of view. I made a choice long ago that I wanted nothing to do with their dumbfuck products, but now they've decided I get no choice and that's not fucking on.
If they're doing any analysis they must be recording in some sense, right? So logically the indicator needs to be active the whole time.
My understanding is that it only comes on when they're recording.
The relevant legal provision is from §8 TDDDG [1]:
"(1) It is prohibited to possess, manufacture, make available on the market, import, or otherwise bring within the territory to which this Act applies, telecommunications equipment that, by its appearance, purports to be another object or is disguised as an object of everyday use and that, because of these circumstances or because of the way it functions, is particularly suited and intended to intercept, without that person’s knowledge, the non-publicly spoken words of another person or to record images of another person without that person’s knowledge."
IANAL, but this sounds like it's directly applicable.
Violations can be punished with up to two years in prison or a fine.
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__8.html
They lost badly to X a few years back, only to show incredible maturity and grace by quitting the platform afterward .. would love to see how they do against Meta
Ah, I was waiting for this to happen! That will be interesting to follow. From my non-lawyer read of German laws that should be a n easy win for the advocacy group, but I’m interested to see Meta’s arguments