Google Translated from German to English:
GDPR vs. Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta Carriers Can Be Held Liable
A new data protection report teaches: Anyone who films uninvolved third parties with smart glasses or allows Metas AI training loses the privilege of the budget exception. reading aloud Print view 53 Read comments Close-up of a black Ray-Ban-Meta-Smart glasses with integrated camera in the eyeglass frame and mirrored lenses on a wooden table. Close-up of a black Ray-Ban-Meta-Smart glasses with integrated camera in the eyeglass frame and mirrored lenses on a wooden table.
(Picture: Tada Images/Shutterstock.com) 13:54 Clock Reading time: 4 min. From Stefan Krempl
The dispute over smart glasses in everyday life continues. After prohibition demands occupied the policy and the Federal Network Agency fit in due to lack of handling, the Hamburg data protection officer Thomas Fuchs has followed up with an investigation by the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses. The analysis is clear: For the everyday use of data glasses in public spaces, there is therefore hardly a legally compliant basis, as long as Meta does not improve on construction method and presets.
In the laboratory, the Hamburg data protectionists dismantled the first-generation Meta Wayfarer model and analyzed the traffic. They quickly reached their limits: The 32-gigabyte flash memory had no standardized connections, the data transmission of the app remained encrypted. In the application memory of the smartphone, however, the examiners came across a discovery: In the internal SQLite database, there are table structures with designations such as “face”, “face_group” or “face_low_confidence_pair”.
Although these tables remained empty in the tests and currently no biometric facial recognition takes place, the substructure for automated person matching is already anchored. The authority also refers to security researchers who briefly managed to unlock a facial recognition function. Meta responded with a covert update. The fact that the Group is technically providing for the identification of people in the future by comparison is a bad blow to the inspectors.
Another point of criticism concerns transparency towards third parties. Externally, the data glasses hardly differ from the Wayfarer classic from the 1950s. Passers-by do not realize that they are captured by video camera, five microphone systems and AI assistant. The signal light proves to be largely ineffective: In daylight, the white LED is barely perceptible and sometimes does not signal direct AI interactions at all. When spectacle wearers become data processors
In addition, there is the vulnerability to manipulation. The protective mechanism, which is intended to prevent images when the LED is concealed, can be tricked with foils or caps. Video recordings launched once continue, even when the signal light is subsequently taped off. This means that the glasses miss the European privacy-by-design requirement. According to the report, this allows for secret surveillance that is incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The classification of data protection law is of serious consequences for the buyers themselves. The budget exception protects private individuals from the GDPR obligations when taking up in a private environment. Anyone who films strangers in public spaces or publishes recordings on social media loses this privilege. The authority clarifies that carriers then become fully responsible data processors. Intractable hurdles in everyday use
The situation becomes even trickier if users do not object to the meta default setting and train the AI model with interaction data. If images and audio signals of third parties are transmitted to the USA for AI training, the data leaves the private purpose. Users thus slip into joint responsibility with the US group pursuant to Article 26 GDPR. Since Meta does not offer an agreement to divide the duties, spectacle wearers move on thin ice.
In order to lawfully process images or conversations of third parties, institutions would either have to obtain informed consent or prove an overriding legitimate interest. Both fail because of everyday realities: effective approval requires prior enlightenment, which is in fact impossible in the face of the inconspicuous glasses. It doesn’t look like a common camera. Video recordings in public spaces can exceptionally be based on legitimate interests. With activated AI functions, however, the rights of the filmed almost always outweigh the rights.
Anyone who walks through the city with the glasses would have to inform passers-by in advance orally or even wear safety vests with inscriptions in order to meet the requirements of the European Court of Justice. Particularly sensitive are medical practices, demonstrations, women's shelters or playgrounds. The use of the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses in public space is thus difficult to legally design under data protection law.
Then they shouldn't mind wearing something that indicates that they are wearing and using the glasses. If it became routine that the only people wearing them were visually impaired and if they were not recording information, I don't think people would care as much. However I would bet that currently less than 1% of people with them have any visual impairment, just moral, ethical, and social impairments.
You should be able to get normal looking glasses if you're legally blind or some other disability, otherwise they should be neon orange or something.
People blindly pushing for violence to this problem are fucking stupid.
Disagree. Some violence is based.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" - Issac Asimov
We need to bring back bullying for certain things
Cameras are everywhere, i dont think there is a realistic way to control your image, biometric data, observed behavior, etc.
The steps of invention: 1) invent a thing 2) abuse that thing / find out thing abuses people 3) Someone attempts to regulate or limit that thing 4) complain that it has always been this way and doing anything is a waste of time
Outlawing cameras seems a bit much.
Giving the government control over who has a cameras is a bad idea.
Slippery slope means we ban sketch artists, word processing, typewritters, and all forms of communication and documenting of facts.
On an individual level, no.
The only real solution is to start banning cameras, which requires state action.
As a disabled dude, that very quickly can turn into 'they shouldn't mind wearing pink triangles (or anything else that I arbitrarily decide)'. While to you it may seem like nothing, to me, I'll throw hands and won't stop until one of us isn't moving - I fucking despise the fact that I need my cane to struggle hobbling along, that I am partially blind, need assistance from others regarding most things, etc, and wanting me ('they shouldn't mind') to broadcast that even louder for all to see, shame and mock even more than they already do (some people are fucking bastards), fuck you. I'm already in a bad way and your solution is to shun others for something they suffer from and can't control is abhorrent. Trying to gain assistance should not require (more) social stigma and embarrassment.
I'm annoyed by these glasses too, and we do need a real solution, but that is abso-fucking-lutely not the solution to go with.
I hate my disabilities, and struggle with depression and suicidal ideation because of them. I'm sure it wasn't your intention when you wrote this, but be better, please. We are normal people too, at our core.
I'm sorry meta has ruined this for disabled people, but I don't think it's wise to put much faith in them; they're using you to justify their shitware. Like, you'd never want to faceID everyone in your POV constantly, right? But meta keeps putting it into their api's.
https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/meta-smart-glasses-face-recognition/
Then they say they'd never do that, but, shit man, it's meta.... those things could cause brain cancer and you know meta would still try to make it happen.
Oh yeah, I'm not arguing for Meta (ew), but against the people cheering on the stigma of the comment I replied to. I'm arguing for being a decent person, and at the same time I'm hoping that someone who has a soul will come up with a product for people like me (or anyone else, really).
Good looking out though =)
I'd say that the solution is an aid that provides you with the assistance you need, rather than a device that streams everything back to meta and allows for clandestine recording, and as a society we should absolutely be making that happen. Anyone using an aid like that should be treated with all the dignity and respect that anyone else would. Anyone wearing glasses like this should absolutely be made to wear a mark of shame.
I know there are already wearables for people with sight loss available, although, after looking around, they're definitely not as cheap as these. Are they actually up to the job, or are people looking for alternatives?
In my experience, similar to ordering a cake vs ordering a wedding cake, devices aimed directly at the disabled are stupid expensive and are meh at best in actually being a helpful device. Pair that with many disabled people living off government assistance, which isn't enough for a home and steady supply of meals let alone nice-to-haves, (in the USA) unless you have a 3rd party health insurance footing the bill, it's unobtainium.
For example, I would very much like to get a power scooter. The last time I checked, the nice ones are 1.5k and up. I get a hair above 1k monthly, and that's with extra assistance for being so poor. And because of the extra assistance, if I try and save every penny to save for a scooter, I will risk hitting my 2k maximum in my bank account, and if so, I lose the extra assistance, permanently.
The government doesn't care, and the companies who do 'care' do so because they can gouge their customers. So while there should be products that are priced fairly and the government should actually provide an amount that doesn't leave people like me on the street (I'm with family for now, but they will pass eventually), neither is occurring. So while I don't own these or similar, I can absolutely understand why. It's an awful situation.
What a fucking terrible policy. You have my sympathy for living under such a cruel regime.
Yeah, it's nuts. The social security extra assistance laws regarding financial assets (more than 1 car (duh), more than 1 house (duh), more than 2k in any and all bank account and stocks, bonds, etc (???)...) haven't been updated in over 30 years, as far as I'm aware. That maximum should be raised to like at least 5k, but again the government doesn't care.
I think now and then about applying/moving away, but I assume that no country wants someone immigrating that basically cannot work, and thus doesn't really give anything back to society. So I'm just stuck here. It sucks.
In a rational and fair country, that amount would be indexed with inflation. I'm guessing you're in the USA, which by all accounts is anything but rational and fair.
Every part of what you've described is awful, and I'm sorry you have to go through it. I have a family member with sight loss, but we're in the UK, so things aren't quite as bad as you're describing, but it seems like there's definitely a need for a fairly priced device that can help out.
I empathize with your condition, but glasses that record everything and everyone and shares that data with one of the worst companies in the world make it everyone's problem. I understand how these can be beneficial to you and others in similar situations, but sacrificing everyone else isn't the right answer.
What I would be okay with is if a medical provider created a similar product that doesn't record but has the ability to do the positive things that Meta glasses do and have them available only to those that get medical approval. I would even be okay if they recorded to a private, secure and encrypted place that is regulated and the data controlled like HIPPA so it couldn't be sold or used to train LLMs.
If this is the only solution, then everyone should have to identify they are wearing a recording device. It would single out people with disabilities, it would be everyone that used them.
I'm not arguing for these, as I consider myself a privacy advocate - I took issue with the degradation and humiliation that one might suffer from others. That part is absolutely not okay.
I disagree with being certified for medical use - that means prices go up up up, often out of reach of those who actually need it. But helpful, with data storage that is easily accessible should a patient or provider need it (fall events, for example) would be fantastic. I would argue facial recognition for family and friends, not from a cloud service but by manual entry, would be great too. Reminders and recognition of medication bottles, too. Stuff like that. Smartphones are handy, but even I forgot sometimes, even when alerts buzzing.
If we got a foss, medically oriented, that would be ideal I think. One that doesn't cost and arm and a leg.
I should clarify that I wish there was a medical option that want stupid expensive and covered by insurance. Unfortunately, I think that's just wishful thinking. Really, I hope that better technology focused for different conditions can be developed off of the work of these other smart glasses.
I personally wouldn't consent to being part of facial recognition even if it were friends and family in control of the data.
Maybe there will be some opt out tech in the future so people just show up blurred or a silhouette and distorted audio when people attempt to record or take pics of them, and it requires enabled consent before hand for them to be able to be recorded normally.
I was thinking that face scans would be opt-in and local only, and you'd need to ask them to do something like wave as a method of consent. Then it only pops up when Jim or Bob or Jean is recognized, and unrecognizable faces just get ignored. Something along those lines. I haven't thought about it too much but something similar for pictures and video. Maybe always-on at home but then switching to standby when you leave home, with just recognized faces and certain events triggering action.
I think that is probably the difference between those who are for the idea and against. Compared to even the average person it seems like you want constant surveillance and recording under the condition you control it. And then others just don't find the need for constant ever present recording even if it is under their complete control.
Which is probably why some don't find the idea of recording glasses appealing at all, since it's not something they find a desire for. While those who want everything thing to be documented do.
... what makes you think I'm for constant surveillance? I'm wanting it at home for 'where did I put my keys' and 'I don't know if I've taken my medicine and forgot to note it down (overdose danger!), or forgotten it entirely' at home; and in public for notes about family and friends ('how is little [I forgot his name, but I have it under Bob's notes] Joey?', or 'it's your birthday next week, isn't it? [holy crap, I completely forgot]'), or for things like if I trip and fall, smack into a wall (yay blindness), perhaps the route back from the doctors office, or showing me reminders to pick up medication on the way home, stuff like that. At home, it would act as another memory and eyes, and away it's just another knowledge base.
Since I don't consider my home space as being surveilled - since it would be a device that has no persistent outside connection, only to pull data on/off like notes or med history, and event pictures or clips - so because I'm already there in my home, I don't see the issue. To me, what I have explained and want in this thread is just a helper to keep myself in check (appointments, reminders, birthdays, names, pill dose tracking, physical safety, easy medical log extraction...). And I already have to wear glasses, so... why not? There just needs to be a device that fits my requirements.
I should note that before my stroke, the Google Glass had just hit the market, and I was intrigued but nothing more. After it happened and I came to the realization that I suffer a bit of cognitive... loss? Degradation? The idea of using wearable tech to save me from myself became pretty desirable. That may be why I'm basically the only one here who is even remotely positive about this; I will never be 100% that I once was, physically or cognitively. But if I were to brush away possible systems to help me, and possibly hurt myself because of it, I would be an obvious idiot.
All that second to second record keeping that happens passively requires surveillance.
Difference is that you are in control of the data instead of entrusting it to a third party.
Ehh, that's like saying 'close your eyes, you're watching me'. Sure on a technicality, but that's a weak argument.
E: I can't spell
So if we meet, you're going to need me to forget your face? I'm only half kidding
Yes so only a memory will remain that will glitch out over time like a still life from the backrooms, so it becomes hard to deciper what the original looked like.