Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

▲ magicalist 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

It's looking at the BLE advertising packets that they send out to everybody. The only thing stored is manufacturer ID, not a device ID (which you wouldn't be able to get anyways).

You might as well try to press charges against Apple or Google for putting readable names for nearby devices that aren't yours in the bluetooth pairing screen.

▲ davidee 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll take my chances, thank you.

I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.

▲

leephillips 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required.

	▲	magicalist 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required. First, note that "filming" in public is not necessarily legal in every state if you include recording audio of conversations you're not party to. Second, the GP said should be illegal without consent, so clearly was talking about what's they consider right, not necessarily what is. But most importantly, "filming and photographing people in public" is also obviously not what the GP was talking about. They said: > Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. And, actually, extracting biometrics from video of people and tracking them/data mining them without consent is in fact not legal in several states already, and potentially federal law, depending on what they do.

▲ cloudfudge 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd probably go for "the device explicitly allowed itself to be ID'd by intentionally broadcasting a signal intended for this purpose."

▲ IncreasePosts 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What region has laws that you're not allowed to look at a packet that was broadcast from a device? This sounds prima facie absurd, but I know a lot of strange laws exist out there.

	▲	randallsquared 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is a case where any law is strange, but so is a lack of a law, for some. `* What do you mean it's allowed for people to record me while I'm telling them off? * What do you mean I'm not allowed to remember (with high fidelity) what someone said to me?` Either way, someone thinks it's weird.

▲ NoahZuniga 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> judge had for lunch

This would be a criminal matter, so a jury would have to decide if you're guilty. I feel like you'd have a hard time convincing 12 jurors that you're doing something wrong here.

▲ pluralmonad 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this legal advice?

▲ driverdan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[citation needed]