The info on that page is a little dated but mostly accurate (there’s still 11 states that require two-party consent for recording a conversation, for example). There’s other sources you can find.
I’m not saying it’s a slam dunk case against devices like this, but it’s not like it’s especially common for people to walk around with what are essentially covert cameras on their faces. It’s something for future courts to decide, and I could see an argument against them on these grounds.
Yeah but the two party consent states for recording imply that it’s in a private location, there is nothing stopping anyone from recording someone in a public location.
It doesn’t matter what the Stateside law of indicates whether it’s public or private, it’s already been decided by the Supreme Court that recording in a public area is a protection that’s given under the First Amendment. This right to record has been challenged a few times by state representatives such as the 2007 case in Massachusetts where it went up to the first district appeals court, and back in 2021 in the Fraiser versus Evan’s case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As a general rule of thumb, if you’re in a public area there is no expectation of privacy so therefore anything goes, this protection generally includes someone standing in a private area recording an area that is considered a public area, and in some cases even include someone who is standing in a public area recording it supposed to private area due to lack of obstruction from that public area (such as someone standing on the street outside a house recording an unobstructed window)
But as you said IANAL
edit:
That being said, because I realize I forgot to add this to the post. I am super against the entire idea of AI based goggles that’s able to identify people in real time. That is such a violation of what should be basic privacy that honestly I think it’s too far
The future is getting a QR code tattooed on your forehead so the link bubble blocks your face, and machine learning thinks you’re an avocado. I’m getting mine done tomorrow.
Lol that has nothing to do with the other, and courts have already set precedent for recording in public spaces and have generally ruled that with current laws there’s no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
The fact the camera being on someones face is almost assuredly going to be an insignificant factor in any future court case considering the sheer amount of cameras pointing at you as-is from phones (How do you know if someone is just on their phone or recording?) and security cameras and now that businesses are heavily investing in ever more cameras for their AI BS…yea, sorry to say, but nothing is going to change on that front for the foreseeable future.
The fun thing is that with novel cases, the law can change. There’s currently no precedent for AI Camera Glasses, and the law(s) I cited were created before anything like this was even a real possibility for the average person.
And re: phones—you can see that’s a camera. Also, they have a bright LED that indicates recording. These glasses do not.
I get your cynicism, but we do not yet live in the dystopian plutocracy where companies get to do whatever they want with impunity (just a lot of it). Unless you’re a lawyer, I’m not inclined towards your opinion.
And re: phones—you can see that’s a camera. Also, they have a bright LED that indicates recording. These glasses do not.
Umm when was the last time you…you know what, let’s do an experiment, start recording a video on your phone, flip it over and look at the back and tell me where the red recording LED is LOL
Anyways, the other commenter here cited specific cases and a supreme court ruling which tied recording in a public space as a 1st amendment issue (which I didn’t know either) so now short of a new federal law passed by congress, it ain’t changing. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact.
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
The info on that page is a little dated but mostly accurate (there’s still 11 states that require two-party consent for recording a conversation, for example). There’s other sources you can find.
I’m not saying it’s a slam dunk case against devices like this, but it’s not like it’s especially common for people to walk around with what are essentially covert cameras on their faces. It’s something for future courts to decide, and I could see an argument against them on these grounds.
Again, I’m NAL.
Yeah but the two party consent states for recording imply that it’s in a private location, there is nothing stopping anyone from recording someone in a public location.
It doesn’t matter what the Stateside law of indicates whether it’s public or private, it’s already been decided by the Supreme Court that recording in a public area is a protection that’s given under the First Amendment. This right to record has been challenged a few times by state representatives such as the 2007 case in Massachusetts where it went up to the first district appeals court, and back in 2021 in the Fraiser versus Evan’s case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As a general rule of thumb, if you’re in a public area there is no expectation of privacy so therefore anything goes, this protection generally includes someone standing in a private area recording an area that is considered a public area, and in some cases even include someone who is standing in a public area recording it supposed to private area due to lack of obstruction from that public area (such as someone standing on the street outside a house recording an unobstructed window)
But as you said IANAL
edit:
That being said, because I realize I forgot to add this to the post. I am super against the entire idea of AI based goggles that’s able to identify people in real time. That is such a violation of what should be basic privacy that honestly I think it’s too far
I hope these get litigated to death or else people feel peer pressure at being an asshole for buying them.
The future is getting a QR code tattooed on your forehead so the link bubble blocks your face, and machine learning thinks you’re an avocado. I’m getting mine done tomorrow.
What happens when QR codes are obsolete because some newer, smaller technology is in place?
You will be forced to have a mark on your wrist or forehead or you will not be allowed to buy or sell anything.
Lol that has nothing to do with the other, and courts have already set precedent for recording in public spaces and have generally ruled that with current laws there’s no expectation of privacy in public spaces.
The fact the camera being on someones face is almost assuredly going to be an insignificant factor in any future court case considering the sheer amount of cameras pointing at you as-is from phones (How do you know if someone is just on their phone or recording?) and security cameras and now that businesses are heavily investing in ever more cameras for their AI BS…yea, sorry to say, but nothing is going to change on that front for the foreseeable future.
The fun thing is that with novel cases, the law can change. There’s currently no precedent for AI Camera Glasses, and the law(s) I cited were created before anything like this was even a real possibility for the average person.
And re: phones—you can see that’s a camera. Also, they have a bright LED that indicates recording. These glasses do not.
I get your cynicism, but we do not yet live in the dystopian plutocracy where companies get to do whatever they want with impunity (just a lot of it). Unless you’re a lawyer, I’m not inclined towards your opinion.
Umm when was the last time you…you know what, let’s do an experiment, start recording a video on your phone, flip it over and look at the back and tell me where the red recording LED is LOL
Anyways, the other commenter here cited specific cases and a supreme court ruling which tied recording in a public space as a 1st amendment issue (which I didn’t know either) so now short of a new federal law passed by congress, it ain’t changing. It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact.
About the time some billionaire/politician/LEO/judge out other influential/affluent person is recorded in a compromising position.