I appreciate your intent, But...

This does nothing to alleviate my privacy concerns, as a bystander, about someone rudely pointing a recording camera at me. The only thing that alleviates these concerns about "smart" glasses wearers recording video, is not having "smart" glasses wearers. I.e., not having people rudely walking around with cameras strapped to their faces recording everyone and everything around them. I can't know/trust that there is some tech behind the camera that will protect my privacy.

A lot of privacy invasions have become normalized and accepted by the majority of the population. But, I think/hope a camera strapped to someone's face being shoved into other peoples' faces will be a tough sell. Google Glass wearers risked having the camera ripped off their faces / being punched in the face. I expect this will continue.

Perhaps your tech would have use in a more controlled business/military environment? Or, to post-process police body camera footage, to remove images of bystanders before public release?

Agreed.

Something like this tool is ridiculous against companies like Google or Meta. Just with their phone apps and OS control with a video like the displayed those companies could know exactly who each person in the video is, what are they doing, who they are with, and record that information forever.

In the video I see three young women, another woman near the zebra crossing. A young woman with a young man, a woman walking with two men on the sides, and another young couple. I know their heights, if they are fat or slim, the type of their hair and so an AI could know that and with that information and a little more like someone of one group having location activated it is enough for a computer to automatically decode the remaining information.

If enough people wear those stupid glasses it means in a city everyone is surveilled on real time with second and centimetre accuracy, included indoors in places like restaurants or malls.

This is too much power that no company or institution should have. If Meta or google have the ability to do that, they will be required by the US government to give that info automatically with some excuse like "national security".

I feel quote uneasy about stuff being recorded and sent to big corps routinely with cameras strapped to random bystander faces. I'm much more bothered by the fact this gets sent to a central location and processed than mere fact of being recorded without consent.

However, even with this uneasy feeling, one has to recognise a street is a public space and I don't see how one can have reasonable expectation of complete privacy there. There is nothing rude about recording what you can see.

The privacy expectation I have is not that my picture will not be captured, but that such recordings from many unrelated people will not be aggregated to trace my movements .

So in summary, I think everyone has a right to photograph or record whatever they like in a public space, but the action of pooling all such recordings, and running face tracking on them to track individual people (or build a database of movements, whatever) is breaching these people's privacy and there should be laws against it.

Seriously. There has been so much progress in the area of non-consensual recording and processing of data, and so little in the area of countermeasures. You can do a web search for the former and find tons of hardware and software that'll help you spy on folks. Searching for adversarial design gives scientific papers. It implies that there is little-to-no measurable demand for privacy (at least of this sort) in the marketplace.

I agree with all you said, but I don't believe there is any way you could protect yourself from being recorded.

The only way for this to work are legal regulations. But those can be easily dismissed as not possible to implement. So this is good PoC to show what is possible and way to discover how this could function. Without such implementation I don't believe you are able to convince anybody to start working on such regulations.

it's an ass-backwards approach to privacy isn't it?