I apologise if this is in the wrong section but I rarely have time to visit these forums and familiarise myself with them.
Anyway got an advertisement on my facebook news feed earlier regarding Ray-Ban sunglasses with a camera in them. To me these sound as creepy AF and was wondering if these are even legal certainly not ethical in my opinion.
Just be weary of you or your kids/grandkids using a pubic urinal with someone wearing sun glasses standing right next to you.
5 Likes
I recollect the general issue of photography in public places has been discussed in another topic.
The simple outcome is with a few exceptions it’s OK to take pics in any public space including others without permission. It’s what one does with the content that may be illegal, or contentious.
4 Likes
I agree. There is little need for such a thing for bona fide purposes. You can shoot people with a camera and still get natural shots without them becoming camera shy with the rare exception of some who will say “no, no, I hate having my picture taken”. You have to wonder if it is reasonable to use a hidden camera to take their image.
Perhaps next we will have the Rayban Shoey, the shoe camera for those who like to take pictures from a very low angle. Or the water and sand proof Rayban Baggy for those who want natural images at the beach. Both have Bluetooth controls to avoid tell tale wires.
3 Likes
If you look at the Ray Ban site, you will see that these “Stories” sunglasses are designed for the young internet connected social media dependent kids who want to build their on-line presence and would normally have a mobile phone attached to a selfie stick, or in a quick draw position to immediately be able to take pics or videos of themselves or their meals, or their ‘friends’, or their activities, etc.
If you look at the first picture, you will see that there is a tell-tale light above the camera when it is working. In reality, we are more likely to be videoed and photographed by the Government and Council overhead surveillance systems, and ‘normal’ people with their phones and cameras, than by someone wearing one of these $440+ sunglasses.
As I live on the Gold Coast, there is a very high probability of encountering people with sunglasses on in any public toilet. I don’t think it would be wise to be oggling at people in the public toilets to see if their sunglasses have a camera.
4 Likes
As someone who on occasion might use a public urinal, what might be evident to the person adjacent is unlikely to amount to very much. If it’s a young male even less evident. There is some basic etiquette to polite use of the facilities. It might also not be so wise to be making use of the facilities with a blue light illuminating on your eye wear, subject to who else might need a short visit at the same time?
The use of such devices is likely something we are all going to come across more often as tech evolves. Our laws do not exclude their use in a public space.
2 Likes
Indeed. However, these types of glasses have been freely available for nearly a decade as have pens with cameras and voice recorders. How they’re allowed to be sold is beyond me but here we are…
It’s no different to many other products readily available for sale in the market place. Battery electric scooters and E-bikes which are faster and more powerful than those permitted for public use are readily available. Any number of devices these days feature cameras and audio. Many modern cameras include increasingly greater resolution and powers to capture well defined images at distance.
The line between what many might perceive as concealed devices and conveniently compact devices may prove difficult to define. In public we are most of the time free to use either to capture freely any image. How the images are used may be of concern legally. The device used is not of concern.
2 Likes
There are vendors that specialise in surveillance devices, tiny cameras and microphones to be hidden, that transmit their content by wireless. When James Bond movies started out this was hi-tech, now anybody can get it and it isn’t that expensive. There is no licensing required to sell or buy it that I can see. This doesn’t mean using it is OK.
3 Likes
I’ll admit the thought every person wearing heavy framed spectacles in public is secretly surveilling me is more than disturbing. Equally intrusive are the many other image capturing devices all around us. Many of these are also not readily apparent.
The miniaturisation of devices capable of capturing video and audio and retransmitting is inevitable. Some of the potential applications include robotics and navigation of autonomous devices. Dash cams are also shrinking, increasing in capability while capturing significant amounts of peripheral content.
A question is whether it’s possible or even practical to draw a line legally on like devices? A line that fits our current legal framework. A line that does not penalise or prevent development and everyday use. Should the line be arbitrated by the nature of the device, how the device might be used, how a device has been used, how the content captured is used, or some other criteria?
There are GoPro’s discretely clipped to the safety head wear of scooter and bike riders and the latest 100x zoom mobile phone cameras. There are likely at any time so many devices near to us in public capable of capturing our image we can never be certain one or more is not watching. For a more complete discussion how many other devices offer similar potential for discrete or unintentional capture of images - How should their use also be regulated to protect against improper use?
Run over be a car at a pedestrian crossing? Did one look both ways, what did the crossing lights indicate? A small consolation, your video enhanced spectacles might offer the only evidence it was not your error of judgement or lack of caution.
1 Like
