| ▲ | ldes 5 hours ago |
| Reading this inspired me that it would be nice if there were a do-not-film-me standard: your mobile phone sends out a do-not-film-me request with a (rotating) hash of your facial biometrics via Bluetooth. All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings. Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party. |
|
| ▲ | peri-cl 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Police unions would love for cameras to standardize on that. There was an article on HN that one city's police force, when there were protests going on, took to playing Disney songs from loudspeakers; so that any recording of their interactions would be impossible to publish on any significant internet platform (or at least, the audio would be muted, by IP protection filters). |
| |
| ▲ | DrScientist 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Did the police have the appropriate license to play those disney songs in a public space? | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I bet Disney's lawyers can squeeze a lot more money out of municipalities for playing the music publicly in the first place than they can out of random citizens who are uploading to Youtube. | | |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Im guessing the intention wasn’t that Disney would actually sue them in court but just getting it blocked automatically in YouTube, etc | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of course that was the point. But malicious broadcast of copyrighted material to trigger automated enforcement systems sounds pretty far from "fair use" to me. Say nothing of the bad publicity when some video is just so bad it hits the news and now your IP is the soundtrack to a cop beatdown. When you look at it from a legal "use it or lose it" and corporate risk perspective it's quite surprising that Disney didn't even sent cease and desists. Edit: Of course you don't lose the copyright but your ability to litigate someone else's unfair use is a lot weaker when their lawyer can trot out a million examples that you were fine with. | | |
| ▲ | DrammBA 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Disney seems to be taking a very hands-off approach when it comes to government use, so I doubt they'll do anything about this police case. | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Copyright isn't "use it or lose it" |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | amelius 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wouldn't that be covered by fair use? Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc. | | |
| ▲ | peri-cl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > "Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?" There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive. | | |
| ▲ | GJim 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. Ahem... In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited. | | |
| ▲ | peri-cl 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | If you look into it more carefully, you'll find this doesn't apply to social media moderation, but only more consequential AI-biased decisions. (In the excerpt you quoted: "legal effects" / or "significantly affects"). | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh no! It's against the law. That'll definitely stop companies from doing it with impunity. |
|
| |
| ▲ | simiones 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Theoretically, yes, absolutely. Practically, no, they would be taken down by automatic filters and you'd have to be willing to face Disney's lawyers to try to get them reinstated. | |
| ▲ | UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You’re right. Tech companies will surprise us all and suddenly start obeying the DMCA to the letter instead of just taking the shortcut of “rights holders upload content, it’s fingerprinted, user content that matches fingerprint is taken down”. Then, we’ll link arms and sing kumbaya. | | |
| ▲ | 0x10ca1h0st 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just to note, you can keep the data on French servers as they are a Offshore/DMCA Ignore country. | | |
| |
| ▲ | queenkjuul 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Wouldn't that be covered by fair use? This has never once prevented a DMCA notice from being issued, and I'm sure you can guess how easy it is to get a person at YouTube to review your appeal |
| |
| ▲ | the_other 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s an admission of guilt by the police, right there. If you have nothing to hide… etc. | | | |
| ▲ | nathanaldensr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wouldn't that constitute a public performance of copyrighted material? The police themselves could be DMCAed. Haha | | |
| ▲ | nkrisc 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or illegal if they know nothing will happen to them. The rule of law is dying because it’s becoming only selectively enforced. | | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not DMCA, but yes, that would definitely open them to a lawsuit for unlicensed performance. | |
| ▲ | vincnetas 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | its basically equivalent of them punching you in the face and running away. Yeah you're right and they're wrong, but what would you do about that and your nose is bleeding. Nasty tactics. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings. Rendering security cameras useless for identifying any criminals? Maybe some of these commenters aren’t old enough to remember when fighting for your right to take photographs and videos in public places was one of the frequent topics in online places like Slashdot and BoingBoing. There have been waves of attempts to restrict freedoms to take photos in many countries. When they pass there’s a significant loss of personal rights and freedoms. > Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party. Do you really want this? An off-button for all cameras nearby? Please purchase your official photographs from the gift shop or from the $5 Photo Booth. This would be a dream for bad people who don’t want to be recorded or photographed doing something, like a bad police officer. Just keep a device around that broadcasts the “do not record at this venue” signal and you can shut down recordings all around. |
|
| ▲ | soapdog 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings. that requires too much goodwill and effort from the makers of such devices. They know their audience wouldn't want that. They don't give a shit about what people being filmed think. |
| |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Nor should they. Think about it some more. It's all fun and games, until same technology is used against you. There was literally a Black Mirror episode about this very thing. | | | |
| ▲ | rpastuszak 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Culture/social pressures work better than purely technical solutions | |
| ▲ | encom an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are just two makers of devices, Google and Apple, both proprietary and user hostile and they'll do anything the government tells them. Remember how quickly they implemented that covid tracking bullshit? Yeah. |
|
|
| ▲ | rainelli 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not too dissimilar to the Black Mirror episode "White Christmas" where you can block other people in real life. Except in this case it's glasses and in Black Mirror retinal implants. We're getting there. |
|
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes. And an app could render the same thing on your screen via the same tech currently used to robustly watermark generative AI image output, and now not only you won't be able to screenshot the app, you also won't be able to take a photo of it with another device, and on the off chance you found some pre-202X camera that still could, no other computer would display the resulting photo either. Yes, let's keep coming with more of these great ideas. To cut this short: the whole overall idea is just universal DRM writ large. A big, principled no fucking way, ever from me. But what about the personal privacy / venue rights ... That's a social problem, it should not be used as excuse to give unilateral control over other people's technology to groups or individuals with special interests. |
|
| ▲ | 63stack 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Great idea, we could also have a standard in browsers that signals you don't want to be tracked. We could call it the "Do not track" header, short for DNT. It would make sure no websites track you. |
|
| ▲ | thesuitonym 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And what happens when some bad actor actively monitors for that signal and seeks out the people who have it? And why does it require carrying my surveillance device to tell others I don't want to be surveilled? |
|
| ▲ | eunos 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > hash of your facial biometrics via Bluetooth Sounds like a swift way to be included in "Need constant observation" list.
Or we can even build a special surveillance for such folks along with plausible Parallel construction scenario constantly refreshed. |
|
| ▲ | amelius 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why not make filming opt-in rather than opt-out? |
| |
| ▲ | Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do you opt out when someone rocks up to the restaurant you are in or the publoc restroom wearing these? | | |
| ▲ | cwillu 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the point: filming should be opt-in. | | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does that even mean? You have to opt in to film? If you meant to say "to being filmed", how do you implement that? People have been filming crowds since the 1950s; "Candid Camera" famously made covert filming mainstream. "Should be" is a dream of the Good Ship Lollipop. Here IRL, laws and regulations are the only thing that will discourage it. | | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can't do it with technology alone (or really at all). It has to be the law that does this. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | cwillu 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, laws and regulations are how you would make something opt-in. I don't see the problem, but thanks for the downvote I guess? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rickdeckard 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I remember there was a patent from Apple for a QR-code which would cause devices to stop filming when it's detected... The idea was for concert venues display these on-stage to block smartphones from filming (and redirect users to iTunes purchases instead IIRC) |
|
| ▲ | lbreakjai 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do we need a standard for something that should socially be the norm? |
| |
| ▲ | tifik 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Technical and legal norms are implementation of social norms. “obviously everybody knows that you are supposed to do it that way” doesnt hold up well at court, or during an argument about any decision that costs big bucks. | | |
| ▲ | lbreakjai 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There already are privacy laws that govern what can be filmed where. Why do we need a standard to pretty please ask some glasshole to respect the law if it's not too much of an inconvenience? |
| |
| ▲ | bch 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because some people would still smoke in restaurants and airplanes if left to their own devices. | |
| ▲ | physicallyIllfr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wasn't there a "standard" that phones in south kora had to make a shutter noise when you took a picture because they had such a huge problem with men doing up the skirt photos of strangers? Not sure why you think social norms are positive. Negative amoral behaviors can become norms. I'd argue the west has tons of amoral behavior that is normalized. | | |
| ▲ | Avicebron 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not sure about the noise, but Japan did something likr it with a constant light when the device was recording. I believe it was combatting the same kind of issues though. | |
| ▲ | lbreakjai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Things happening does not mean it a social norm. It was never acceptable to take underskirt pictures in Japan. They also did not put the onus on women to wear special camera-disabling underwear. Likewise, it's not acceptable to shove a camera to everyone's face, and it shouldn't be on people to opt-out of it. | |
| ▲ | mrlonglong 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This. Absolutely this. Explains a lot about why people vote for racist and right wing parties. | | |
| ▲ | kdjdkcneixj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > and right wind parties Now I get the racists, but you, quite literally, just boiled down all politics to: left wing parties = good; right wind parties = bad; And, honestly, that’s gotta be the single most childish and naive take anyone could ever make about politics. It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad that you think you’re “fighting big tech” when this is probably the most “I’m a social media junkie” take ever. | | |
| ▲ | pocksuppet 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's good to a first-order approximation. Haven't seen many cases where it fails. You do get right-wing parties pretending to be left-wing (never the reverse) though, like the German one that called itself "worker's socialist" | | |
| ▲ | idjcjdjdjskdj 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's good to a first-order approximation. It… really is not. People thinking in such binary terms (good vs evil) is exactly how we get to where we are today. Nothing is as black and white as it seems to be. Especially politics. |
| |
| ▲ | mrlonglong 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trump is a massive disaster and you come out and say this ? Haaaaaa. | | |
| ▲ | kdjdkcneixj 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What in the… what? Who said anything about Trump? Dude. Seriously. I mean this in the least snarky and rude way possible: try to get off social media. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bell-cot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do we need laws against stealing bikes? (Yes, example chosen for its reputation for indifferent enforcement.) | | |
| ▲ | lbreakjai 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're getting this wrong. We don't need a standard to signal you don't want your bike to be stolen. The social expectation is that a bike can't be taken. What the parent comment is suggesting is to invert the onus. "I can film you by default, unless you tell me not to". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kdjdkcneixj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And now you’re a walking antenna broadcasting your face/biometric ID hash to anyone in range. Sounds a lot worse. The possible applications of this alone are infinitely more scary than perverts filming others without their consent. This is THE nightmare scenario. Think about it for a second and you’ll see why. |
|
| ▲ | kandros 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| there was a black mirror episode on something similar IIRC |
|
| ▲ | kingkongjaffa 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| These are social problems not technology problems. We want a society that does not need these workarounds. |
| |
| ▲ | DrScientist 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Indeed. The tricky part is that social peer pressure requires a lack of anonymity - not just in terms of detecting whether people are recording without consent at the time - but also the posting of content online. Naming and shaming requires names. | |
| ▲ | ldes 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The lines blur between actively taking photos and passively recording for augmented reality, AI assistance, etc. People might not be aware that they record. This standard would also be useful to extend to robots. For example if you visit friends who have a roomba [1]. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-i... | |
| ▲ | w4yai 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can't trust humans to follow the rules. They break rules all the time. Look at the HN community. | | |
| ▲ | rpastuszak 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Humans adapt and will always break the rules, but that’s not something that can be solved with tech. Think: prohibition vs public anti smoking campaigns/healthcare support/and then increasing prices |
| |
| ▲ | pasc1878 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which won't happen as criminals will never want themselves filmed and they are the ones you want to film to make society better and protect yourself. | | |
| ▲ | rawling 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Haven't you got that the wrong way around? If we have to come up with a technological solution to grant anonymity when people are filming, criminals can use it. If we as a society don't go around filming everyone all the time, we don't need that technical solution available, so we can film the criminals when they are doing something criminal. |
| |
| ▲ | airstrike 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We also want a society that is less greedy but that will never happen. |
|
|
| ▲ | gjs278 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |