Bans like this minimize popularity. It doesn't vaporizer all known products.
Australia still has BB-guns even though they're banned, but they probably have less of them because of the ban.
Works for some niche technologies like this. Doesn't work for things like drugs or tabacco. The difference is mass importation, and chances of being caught.
People generally keep drugs at home and buy from a dealer who has risked mass importing the product.
...but there's probably not going to be a "pervert glasses dealer" in every suburb like drug dealers are.
I don't know how I feel about this. If they can ban one camera, they can ban them all. It's not illegal to take pictures of people in public. I get that it's creepy, but where does one draw the line?
"If we end up having millions of these devices in the country, there'll be no place that's free for your privacy,"
Brother, where the fuck have you been? That's already the case.
I shall maintain the correct answer to this is it's legally permissible to correct any camera that is recording you without express consent. If that camera happens to be on someone's face at the time... They should have made smarter life choices.
It’s not illegal to take pictures of people in public. I get that it’s creepy, but where does one draw the line?
Most countries have mastered this nearly impossible task of drawing the line quite well.
In many everyday situations, yes - it may be legal to take a photo of someone in public.
Australia doesn’t have one single “photography law” that bans taking photos of people in public. Instead, the legal risk tends to come from a mix of areas, like:
privacy and surveillance laws (which can vary significantly by state/territory, and can apply even when you’re not “hiding” what you’re doing)
consent and image releases (particularly for commercial/promotional use)
workplace surveillance rules (if staff are involved)
australian consumer law risks (for example, misleading or deceptive conduct if an image implies endorsement)
defamation and reputational harm
harassment and related conduct
where the photo was taken (public place vs private property)
It's the consent for commercial use part that should sink these things (if it's flowing back to Meta for example) and should be codified formally for this case. Essentially the law is there already and needs to be enforced. With a big stick.
It's the same shit as Uber taking over a Taxi industry that was regulated for a reason and then enshittifying after they've gotten away with it. Crack down hard and fast. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
There will of course be a government exception though, national security, public safety or some shit. Getting it away from Palantir and Meta is still a win.
I am so torn about these things. Like having wearable tech that's aware of what is around me would be super cool, like Google Map's camera assisted navigation, for example.
That said, I don't want cameras on everyone at all times.
Guessing that would be They Live. Haven't actually watched it myself but cultural osmosis being what it is... Anyway here is some more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
They should be banned. Recording specific people in the street without asking is a dick move. Especially if it's for sexual gratification or to embarrass/bully them online.
It's done in by covert means BECAUSE it's socially/morally unacceptable.
18 Comments
RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 11d
Great job, Australian government. Now take down all the other AI Facial Recognition cameras /s.
zen@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 11d
Hope them cunts ban the algorithm next
TheFermentalist@reddthat.com · 11 pts · 11d
What about the units that already in the country? Not just the originals but the knockoffs as well?
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
Bans like this minimize popularity. It doesn't vaporizer all known products.
Australia still has BB-guns even though they're banned, but they probably have less of them because of the ban.
Works for some niche technologies like this. Doesn't work for things like drugs or tabacco. The difference is mass importation, and chances of being caught.
People generally keep drugs at home and buy from a dealer who has risked mass importing the product.
...but there's probably not going to be a "pervert glasses dealer" in every suburb like drug dealers are.
PissMissile@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 11d
I don't know how I feel about this. If they can ban one camera, they can ban them all. It's not illegal to take pictures of people in public. I get that it's creepy, but where does one draw the line?
Brother, where the fuck have you been? That's already the case.
DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 11d
I shall maintain the correct answer to this is it's legally permissible to correct any camera that is recording you without express consent. If that camera happens to be on someone's face at the time... They should have made smarter life choices.
A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 11d
Most countries have mastered this nearly impossible task of drawing the line quite well.
(source)
It's very similar in my home countries.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 11d
It's the consent for commercial use part that should sink these things (if it's flowing back to Meta for example) and should be codified formally for this case. Essentially the law is there already and needs to be enforced. With a big stick.
It's the same shit as Uber taking over a Taxi industry that was regulated for a reason and then enshittifying after they've gotten away with it. Crack down hard and fast. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
There will of course be a government exception though, national security, public safety or some shit. Getting it away from Palantir and Meta is still a win.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
It is illegal to take creepershots where there is an expectation of privacy in Australia.
However that can be malleable depending on the quality of judge/lawyering.
cadekat@pawb.social · 3 pts · 11d
I am so torn about these things. Like having wearable tech that's aware of what is around me would be super cool, like Google Map's camera assisted navigation, for example.
That said, I don't want cameras on everyone at all times.
username_1@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 11d
Aliens just don't want to be discovered.
Obey. Consume. Ban.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 11d
Huh?
I don't trust flock cameras on the street corner. Why would I trust flock glasses?
Or am I reading way too hard into a joke about aliens?
username_1@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 11d
That was just a reference to an old movie about aliens and glasses.
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 11d
Please tell me the movie title is a play on the term "Ray Bans"
Canconda@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 11d
what movie??
shads@leminal.space · 8 pts · 11d
Guessing that would be They Live. Haven't actually watched it myself but cultural osmosis being what it is... Anyway here is some more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live
SexyMoose@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 11d
They Live (1988)
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 11d
They should be banned. Recording specific people in the street without asking is a dick move. Especially if it's for sexual gratification or to embarrass/bully them online.
It's done in by covert means BECAUSE it's socially/morally unacceptable.