AR Use In Public Spaces - What Privacy?

[Tooldog]

I'm not an attorney; my formal education background is in biology and electronics. But I can conceive that everyone has thoughts about what privacy in public spaces might be in the United States. I don't know what the actual applicable laws are, mostly because nuances are determined locally to a large degree. However that, in my previous thread about AR/VR people seemed to be keen to discuss what acceptable use of AR in public spaces means to them and so, here is a place to discuss...

I don't expect to have privacy outside of the confines of my house. In fact, if my drapes are drawn, I don't expect to have visual privacy in the spaces you can see into from outside. I don't even expect privacy if I'm making noises loudly enough to be heard from outside. In my mind, public means whatever I say or do is meant to be seen and heard by anyone, anywhere, and at any time because it could be recorded for posterity by some device in public. I have no qualms about being recorded or photographed in public because if I'm willing to be seen, I'm willing to be recorded. Ultimately, it strikes me as odd anyone would expect privacy in a public space. -- All that said, I'm more likely to leave a purse, wallet, jacket, etc., where it lay rather than inspect it or it's contents.

 

[LeeW]

When the pervs start using it to record all the girls they are following (stealthily) and upload the videos online. And they will.

That is when the calls for privacy will start in earnest.

Apple and everyone else will know this is going to be a major issue, Apple, the privacy company after all - will come up with a way to make it obvious you are recording. They have no choice.

There is a big difference between you happened to be in my shot when I took a picture vs I followed you for 10 minutes recording you.

It will be a big issue.

 

[Tooldog]

When the pervs start using it to record all the girls they are following (stealthily) and upload the videos online. And they will.

That is when the calls for privacy will start in earnest.

Apple and everyone else will know this is going to be a major issue, Apple, the privacy company after all - will come up with a way to make it obvious you are recording. They have no choice.

There is a big difference between you happened to be in my shot when I took a picture vs I followed you for 10 minutes recording you.

It will be a big issue.

As far as I am aware there isn't an AR camera that would be useful for this sort of thing. They are near 1:1 focal length with the human eye out of necessity. Then again I don't understand the nature or manner of "pervs" and their stealth abilities. I can imagine that it would be creepy to have someone follow you not knowing their true intent -- but that isn't an AR or privacy issue, that is a stalking issue.

But let's imagine this fear is plausible. It would have to be the case that the stalker-pervs will eschew whatever they are using now for the capabilities of an AR device because AR makes stalking easier. I don't think AR would create stalker-pervs out of normal people (sounds like a movie plot).

In the time I've spent doing amateur landscape and wildlife photography, anything really interesting usually takes a lot of time to prepare and setup a shot. Street photographers usually have to take a hundreds of photos to capture a scene they can work into something worthy of display. Even then we are talking 16MP or more sensor no smaller than 4/3's and a nice glass lens in front of it. A 4mm or smaller sensor that is on an AR just can't give you the kind of quality you need for usable photography at distance or in low light.

Spectacles has "SnapChat" glasses with a max resolution of 2.9MP, RayBan and MadGaze have "smartglasses" that are 5MP. That's about like a webcam in photo quality. There just isn't a use case for zooming AR glasses quite yet for the "pervs" you speak of to utilize. Probably nothing to worry about.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Fwiw, in the United States, you're legally allowed to photograph anything that is easily visible (to the naked eye) from a public space. This includes even e.g. looking into people's windows, provided you're standing on public property and not using a ridiculous zoom lens or similar.

Whether such behavior is ethical is an entirely different matter.

Photographing Strangers, Part 2

Navigating the legal and ethical minefield of street photography.

dinalitovsky.bulletin.com

 

[Tooldog]

I can imagine a case where cheating partners and blueflu beach combers wouldn't want their photo taken by anything or anyone. But I don't get the hate for body cameras including AR or smartglasses. If one person in your life circle has a smartphone, you already lost control of the digital mapping of your personal habits. Apple, Google, Facebook and so many others, including governments and law enforcement have huge stockpiles of data about us. Its all for sale too. AR isn't going to herald in a new wave of data gathering, more like a little augmentation.

If you or someone you know has been to your house with a smart device of any kind, you are already known to the data gathering machine. AR isn't going to change much about that.

 

[Jensend]

I don't expect to have privacy outside of the confines of my house.

I have reduced expectations of privacy in public places, but private vs. public is not a binary distinction. If I go to a public park, I expect that people will see me there and I may be captured in a photo or video. But if I strike up a conversation with someone, I can reasonably expect that that conversation isn't being recorded. Sure, someone could have a hidden camera, or record audio from their phone, but AR glasses make that easier.

There are security video cameras all over the place, but even with that, there is limited access to the videos.