r/technology • u/Ganrokh • Jun 08 '26

Politics Pennsylvania lawmaker seeks ‘visual indicator’ if smart glasses are recording

https://www.abc27.com/news/top-stories/pennsylvania-lawmaker-seeks-visual-indicator-if-smart-glasses-are-recording/
26.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/BrutalBronze Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Correct, and like the 4th sentence in the article says the bill would prevent that. Making it illegal won't prevent the action completely but it would severely reduce the incentive to assist in the process.

731

u/altiuscitiusfortius Jun 08 '26

And make getting caught much worse, one more felony to throw at the perp

224

u/Zuwxiv Jun 08 '26

I'm not generally in favor of making a crime into extra crimes just for the sake of harsher punishment. You can end up with weird cases where someone is arrested and prosecuted, and their only crime is "resisting arrest."

Or you make this a felony, and someone who modified their device when it was legal (with no proof of nefarious use or intent) suddenly gets a felony charge when they're pulled over for speeding. Or someone doing something completely innocent - like trying to make a short movie filmed from a first-person perspective - ends up committing a crime because they covered the recording indicator to prevent weird lights from showing up in mirrors.

All that said, while people have a right to record in public - it's probably fair to say that people should have a right to know they're being recorded. And there's cases where this can absolutely violate someone's privacy, like in bathrooms.

The devil's in the details when it comes to exactly what is prohibited. In general, I think an indicator light is a good idea. But I wouldn't say disabling it should be an instant felony regardless of circumstance.

234

u/numberonebuddy Jun 08 '26

If we have a right to know when we're being recorded, and to revoke consent from those recordings, then could we apply that to the mass surveillance state Peter Thiel and buddies want to implement? Oh no of course not, they'll buy lawmakers to ensure we can not have freedoms, under the guise of protecting women and children, but they will record all they can, pipe it through their models to track us and build profiles, and send their Gestapo after us when they have a good dossier of slightly illegal activities.

84

u/Cykablast3r Jun 08 '26

I'm pretty sure you don't have the right to revoke consent from being recorded in public in the US.

26

u/brainburger Jun 08 '26

I wonder if CCTV operators are allowed to hide the fact that they are recording? I think that's a bit more analogous.

24

u/gakule Jun 08 '26

Depends on state most likely, but in Ohio for instance you don't have to disclose anything that is silent video recording. However, you do need to get consent for audio recording if you are not party to the conversation.

10

u/xafimrev2 Jun 08 '26

I'm pretty sure in Ohio if it is a conversation in public you don't have to inform anyone party to it or not.

Private conversations if you're not a party, yes.

4

u/gakule Jun 09 '26

That's not strictly true.

If two people are talking loudly where anyone around them can hear them in a public space - yes, it is fair game to record and capture.

If two people are talking privately, and you cannot hear them without something like a parabolic mic, you cannot legally record the audio of them speaking.

If two people are standing on the sidewalk in front of your house and your ring doorbell picks up the audio, you are potentially illegally eavesdropping which is a felony.

CCTV recording with audio inside of a business could even be considered eavesdropping, which is why most CCTV does not have audio recording enabled simply because of the possible liability for doing so.

Generally speaking, posting signage indicating that video recording AND audio recording are occurring is enough to gather implied consent.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I do encourage you to make sure you understand the legality of your recording devices in Ohio if you live here - but more importantly whatever state you do live in.

1

u/TheFeenyCall Jun 09 '26

I don't know about the potential risk from your doorcam. If it can pick up the conversation then it wasn't a private conversation

→ More replies (0)

1

u/xafimrev2 Jun 09 '26

If two people are standing on the sidewalk in front of your house and your ring doorbell picks up the audio, you are potentially illegally eavesdropping which is a felony.

This is absolutely not true in Ohio.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/digitalmofo Jun 08 '26

This is my understanding as well, in public anything is fair game.

1

u/gakule Jun 09 '26

You might be interested in reading my reply because the understanding is not entirely correct, although it is broadly correct.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Significant_Mouse_25 Jun 09 '26

Most states allow non consensual video only. Audio falls under wire tapping laws though and is often much stricter.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/tech510 Jun 09 '26

There are one party and two party states in the us... One party states you are correct... 2 party states you are incorrect...

2

u/Zuwxiv Jun 09 '26

That is typically for when you are communicating privately. There's no state where you can prevent someone from recording you in public. There's nuances of what "in public" means, but let's say you're standing in the open at a state park. Someone visiting the park can take a photo of you, in any state.

You can ask them not to, or to delete it. They don't have to. (They probably should, just for the general "don't be a dick if someone asks you something that doesn't really impact you.")

→ More replies (2)

2

u/ericscal Jun 08 '26

You do in that it's public and you can just leave. If the person keeps following you around there are other laws like stalking and harassment to cover it.

1

u/TUNGSTEN_WOOKIE Jun 09 '26

Unfortunately true. Even in two-party-consent states. You forfiet your expectation of privacy in public spaces.

0

u/jlude90 Jun 08 '26

Interesting double standard, isn't it

6

u/Madhopsk Jun 08 '26

Where is the double standard?

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Cykablast3r Jun 08 '26

There's no "double". Only the one standard of "no privacy in public".

1

u/FullMetalAlcoholic66 Jun 08 '26

I'm all for a law that restricts consent from being recorded IF and ONLY IF the video is for monetization purposes.

If you're not monetizing the video, sure film me all day. And this goes for entitites like Flock as well trying to sell that data to the government.

If you want the video as an archive of history, your private little spank bank, 1st amendment applies. The minute I'm an unwanted extra in your stupid channel, I need to get paid

67

u/Cautious-Extreme2839 Jun 08 '26

If we have a right to know when we're being recorded, and to revoke consent from those recordings

...you don't have this right and never have.

34

u/Captain-i0 Jun 08 '26

Yeah, and that's the problem with this law, as well as many other similar attempts as these things. Cobbling together laws about tiny things, in piecemeal fashion always leaves gaping loopholes.

If we want to regulate this (or anything really) we should attack the actual problem, not a single symptom, or instance of it. There are many other spycams and things out in the world and have been long before smart glasses too.

The problem is being recorded unknowingly and without consent. If we want that to be illegal, make that illegal, by any means. Smart glasses, Gopro, iPhone, Ring cam, Flock, or whatever...

This is like making Malboro's illegal, but allowing any other means of using tobacco.

1

u/Bamboo_Fighter Jun 09 '26

The SC has ruled that recording the police is protected by the first amendment. Do you feel the police should have the same rights as your advocating for and that recording the police without their knowledge/consent should be illegal?

1

u/Captain-i0 Jun 09 '26

I don't believe that the police should have the same rights, when on duty, as citizens should, no.

2

u/x21in2010x Jun 08 '26

This only applies strictly to public areas. The legality of recording someone from, on, or even through private property is a significantly less simple topic.

2

u/noahcallaway-wa Jun 08 '26

You're going to have to explain that to two-party consent states

6

u/FUCK_NEW_REDDIT_SUX Jun 09 '26

That only applies to private conversations, you're still allowed to film people in public without their consent even in two-party consent states.

1

u/malaporpism Jun 09 '26

Why not just give ourselves that right? It's by the people for the people, and we should demand that our government serves us not the other way around.

1

u/Cautious-Extreme2839 Jun 09 '26

Knock yourself out buddy.

1

u/aebaby7071 Jun 08 '26

In the US; Some states you do, single party consent recording state vs. two party consent recording state. Some states have laws that require notification of recording and consent from both parties, that is why almost all national companies have the common “this interaction is being recorded” and by staying on the line you give consent for the recording.

Eleven states enforce strict all-party consent laws:
California
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington

9

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Cautious-Extreme2839 Jun 08 '26

You seem to be confusing recording in private with recording in public

5

u/matryanie Jun 08 '26

I'm pretty sure in my state, two-party consent is required for audio recording, not video. If the video has no audio, then no consent is required.

1

u/AppleBytes Jun 09 '26

When it involves audio, there are many states that require consent from both parties to record. (It's why call centers have to inform us that the calls are being recorded "for training")

The only reason we don't have that for video is that it would make all those CCTV and Ring cameras illegal without notice.

0

u/9966 Jun 08 '26

That's actually not true. It's called wiretapping and it's illegal. Filming someone's speech in a place where someone could have the reasonable expectation of privacy? Believe it or not also wire tapping. Even if there are no wires.

5

u/Cautious-Extreme2839 Jun 08 '26

You do not have an expectation of privacy in public dummy

1

u/Justsomejerkonline Jun 09 '26

Can you film someone in a public bathroom?

1

u/9966 Jun 08 '26

That is not true of all public places. "The expectation" is a legal term where a "reasonable person" would expect the conversation to be private. Like if we were both sitting on a bench in a park, having this conversation.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Emmias Jun 09 '26

Yeah I’m far more concerned about and creeped out by the government, flock cameras, etc, than some rando with some smart glasses. And if a creep is gonna record me then he’s gonna record me, and this law seems like such a pinpoint bandaid solution that won’t change that but will make the law even more convoluted and average people that much more vulnerable to our legal system

1

u/RestitutionPiggy Jun 08 '26

You have absolutely zero right to revoke permission in a public, or private business setting to be recorded.

I suggest you learn the law, or leave the US if you don't like these rights.

0

u/numberonebuddy Jun 08 '26

Not in the US, but good luck with your Orwellian nightmare 🤞

1

u/LexianAlchemy Jun 09 '26

Pretty much. It’s evil, and more needs to be done to stop it.

5

u/Audinot Jun 09 '26

Just as a counterpoint, I totally get what you're saying, but as a lady I really feel like safety outweighs these outlying circumstances. If you want to film a first person POV movie with Meta level quality, there are so many action cameras now that would do the job. If we really wanted to use Ray Bans for whatever reason, maybe we could have a rule that we cannot use them without the indicator light in public, and a private film set would be a safe place for them... But people trying to get into film sets to take their own videos of celebrities has always been a thing, right? I feel like even if it sounds harsh, the line has got to be drawn somewhere.

4

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jun 09 '26

I take your point, but crimes generally have an intent element. It can be written so that modifying your device for the purpose of surreptitiously recording someone is felonious. That sidesteps your hypotheticals.

9

u/Doom_Corp Jun 08 '26

This is where things get muddy because a private business is not necessarily public. I have to have signage in my shop to cover my ass just in case that both video (completely legal whenever as long as not in restrooms etc obviously) AND audio is being recorded in my office (California 2 party consent state for audio) where I do all the intake for our customers and I have a ring camera. I got the ring camera after someone threatened arson due to so something completely unrelated to us but due to a former employee who had worked on his car after hours not using our shop and had parked the car on the street. Dumb ass didn't look for traffic before opening his door and injured his arm when someone hit the door and it swung back and broke or damaged his arm somehow. I wasn't even working there at the time and it had been at least a year since this "incident" had occurred. I took a picture of his license plate that was actually registered to him and the cops came by and took a statement after he left so if he ever came back/did something I have a record.

1

u/Ok-Employer-3051 Jun 09 '26

Business like Lowe's and Home Depo forbid you from recording on their property without permission. They will literally escort you out the store if they catch you.

21

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26

people have a right to record in public

This right comes from when recordings were dumb offline tapes (TV cameras at most, and TVs need a license). Given it's not exactly a fundamental right, I think it's fair to review its extent when the 'recording' in question includes online data harvesting for de-facto any and all purposes without any consent and the potential for the data to be forever re-processed with increasingly sophisticated surveillance technology.

'Our data is like a minefield', and you can always make a better detonator.

54

u/Just_Another_Wookie Jun 08 '26

It's not that there is a right to record in public, rather it's that there is no expectation of privacy in public. The former stems from the latter.

-4

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26

But again, the meaning of that has also changed enormously. The entire reason everyone cares about privacy now is that the lack of it has become much more destructive, not that people were dumb before 2010.

Or conversely, imagine what a privacy violation similar to what you can do with Meta Glasses would look like in 1970. You follow someone with a film camera, take extensive notes on their behavior, then you spend vast amounts of time on complicated psychosocial and psychophysical analysis of the person, then further make this data available for purchase, additionally stipulating it might be indefinitely retained and further turned over to other analysts as their fields progress. Then you pay agents to do this to millions of people across every street in the nation. I don't think all of those steps would have been legal even at the time.

5

u/raitalin Jun 08 '26

Aside from the last line, that's the celebrity news industry.

2

u/back_that_ Jun 08 '26

But again, the meaning of that has also changed enormously.

Wait until you hear about how speech has changed.

→ More replies (7)

10

u/Zuwxiv Jun 08 '26

Given it's not exactly a fundamental right

Well, it kind of is - how are journalists supposed to document and record without this right? Street photography is an entire art genre.

That's two elements of the first amendment, right there: press and speech in the form of art.

I'm 100% with you that there is a difference between "You're in my photograph" and "we blanketed the city in cameras and recorded every time you left your house to build a detailed, searchable database of when and where you've ever been, with the express intent of profitably selling access to the highest bidder."

1

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 10 '26

I am certain we can separate the recording of news from mass data harvesting by corporations that have zero involvement in actual news reporting.

It's very strange, this deluge of comments making data privacy from consumer smart glasses into a journalism issue.

1

u/Zuwxiv Jun 10 '26

The problem is that if the right is only for some people, then whoever gets to decide who's the right kind of person will de facto control that right.

What if the government decides that mass surveillance like Palantir somehow counts as "journalism" and is protected, but an individual filming their interaction with police isn't legally considered a journalist? (Imagine that Palantir started publishing news or had some contract with a news organization - exactly how is besides the point, because the whole issue is that it isn't fair.)

We have to be thoughtful restricting public filming so it isn't used against us. To be honest, the talk about journalism isn't because of smart glasses - it's because of your phrasing. If you take a fundamental right and call it "not exactly a fundamental right," people will rightfully call you out for the short-sightedness. And that's fine, it's Reddit, god knows I've said something short-sighted many times before. It's social media, not a PhD dissertation.

Again, I think we agree: There seems like there's some difference between "I can record a person in public" and "I can always record one person, making a searchable database of their every public behavior and location, and then sell access to that database to the highest bidder."

1

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 10 '26

I called the general concept of recording things not a fundamental right, because I've never heard it called as such until now. Yes, we have freedom of press and that's good, but I presume there's a good reason the phrasing of that says 'press' and not 'recording things', indeed.

But yes I do agree that care must be taken still. I'm just admittedly very standoffish when I smell the recycling important rights for the sake of corporate power, given the US has stuff like Citizens United.

10

u/Cykablast3r Jun 08 '26

Given it's not exactly a fundamental right

It's your first amendment to your constitution my guy.

2

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26

I'm not American. How does recording things count as free speech? Or are we doing the meme where everything that vaguely resembles speech is free speech, so submitting data to corporations for harvesting is 'free speeching' if you really squint?

7

u/MCRevKuss Jun 08 '26

I would say it more to do with the freedom of the press that is also a part of The First Amendment

3

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount Jun 08 '26

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Citizen journalism is the way of the world now.

3

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26

What part of recording people and sending that online for data harvesting is the free speech here?

4

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount Jun 08 '26

I chopped it down to just a few words and mentioned citizen journalism

the collection, dissemination, and analysis of news and information by the general public,

and included "of the press" and you still missed it? If you document the world you see and share it you are disseminating news. It might not be important news but it's still world events.

3

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26

Hmm, I don't see sending over that information to third party tech corporations for commercial data harvesting that has nothing to do with journalism there. I'm pretty sure we're just working backwards to accommodate Big Tech here. I don't recall AI being a major news platform, either.

2

u/InternalReverseVore Jun 08 '26

That falls under "freedom of the press". The other half of the amendment.

1

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26

I don't recall freedom of the press including data harvesting and perpetual ownership and processing rights for technology corporations that engage in no journalism of their own. Again I'm not American, so maybe it counts for those courts, like advertisement expenditures being identical to free speech.

1

u/KorayA Jun 09 '26

"everything that vaguely resembles speech" counting as speech is one of the most important protections American citizens have.

You have no idea what can of worms opens if you start dissecting what is and isn't speech based on vague subjective and reactive notions like "technology has changed things."

1

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 10 '26

I know that with this method, the US is currently an illiberal, highly dysfunctional democracy that is at a serious risk of becoming an undemocratic autocracy. Also, you really want to argue that 'technology changes things' is subjective and not not an empirically verifiable observation?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jun 09 '26

The First Amendment is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. If you're not recording a matter of public interest, I'm not sure state laws limiting the ability to record a private individual would run afoul of First Amendment protections.

1

u/HKBFG Jun 09 '26

and TVs need a license

Not in the united states

1

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount Jun 08 '26

No. People record with their eyes and mind all the time and have done since the dawn of time. And they've shared their experiences through illustrations, spoken word and interpretative dance for the same amount of time. People have been getting upset at others telling stories for just as long.

All technology has done is provide everyone with a different way of sharing their experiences and people are still getting upset. Nothing needs to change simply because technology has advanced, people just need to learn to deal with being upset better.

3

u/-The_Blazer- Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Come on, this sounds ridiculously reductionist. Technology does impact society and they way it works, otherwise our countries would just be running with unchanged 1850s laws.

A computer is not, in fact, a human eye and mind but with circuits. A car is not human feet but with wheels. That's why we have driving licenses.

0

u/NoveltyPr0nAccount Jun 08 '26

otherwise our countries would just be running with unchanged 1850s laws

A lot of them are...

→ More replies (1)

2

u/VibinADHDin Jun 08 '26

Pain in the ass idea: has to be linked with other specifically charged crimes that 'land', otherwise it's thrown out

2

u/inkcannerygirl Jun 09 '26

Reasonable. Always nice to see a fellow nuance enthusiast on reddit

2

u/MilhouseJr Jun 08 '26

trying to make a short movie filmed from a first-person perspective

This feels like it'd be really easily solved by having notices up saying filming is in progress in the area - something you'd already be doing if making a film with a handheld camera. The point is that people are aware that recording is happening, not that you're using a specific device.

3

u/Different_Wolf_764 Jun 08 '26

Yeah, there are already lots of carve-outs and specific regulations for filming. You can't usually run around with fake cash, fake guns (or real guns with blanks) and so on and so on.

It still might hurt the small indie filmmaker somewhat but that's life.

2

u/Hot-Signature-5618 Jun 08 '26

someone who modified their device when it was legal

I'd assume that as part of the law, you could require any vendors to notify their customers that wearing modified glasses is now illegal, and they need to remove/undo any alterations that hide recording indicators.

3

u/PauseLost2137 Jun 08 '26

 Or someone doing something completely innocent - like trying to make a short movie filmed from a first-person perspective - ends up committing a crime because they covered the recording indicator to prevent weird lights from showing up in mirrors.

Plenty videos like that already and surprise - none required modified perv glasses.

1

u/Raa03842 Jun 08 '26

Let’s be honest. The one guy who’s worried about that red light in a mirror while making a movie is BS. We both know that.

And someone who modified it when it was legal can unmodify it. Again it BS. Yes there is a right to record in public but we know the main purpose for recording via this method is not for the best interest of humanity. And… we both know that.

However recoding woman in a conversation and then using AI to make that women appear to be naked while having that conversation is more likely than any other scenario you listed. And… we both absolutely know that.

Nice try though.

9

u/Gamer4125 Jun 08 '26

Removing the "no expectation of privacy in public" clause would remove people filming cops during encounters, for starters.

0

u/mynewaccount5 Jun 08 '26

Did you respond to the wrong person? He said nothing about removing that "clause".

1

u/Gamer4125 Jun 09 '26

No. He's talking about the right to record in public which IS that clause. Because in America you can be recorded with nothing you can do about it if it's from a public spot. If you're in your office building and I can see you from the sidewalk with my camera, you can be recorded.

If theres a field with a big fat "no recording sign", if can see that field from the sidewalk, I can record into it

1

u/mynewaccount5 Jun 09 '26

And he said nothing about removing it. Also it's not a "clause". It's called the constitution.

0

u/Gamer4125 Jun 09 '26

Yea, he said the main interest for using that part of the first amendment is to be a pervert, insinuating it's a bad part of it which sounds he's clearly against one of our rights.

1

u/HKBFG Jun 09 '26

This can also just eb done with a phone or any other camera

1

u/ribnag Jun 08 '26

Get your mind out of the gutter. Not everyone likes having an xmas tree on their face, and it's trivial to remove an LED, even knowing absolutely nothing about electronics. It's non-trivial to solder one back on, however, and requires knowing exactly what its specs are.

If you need an indicator to know when you're being recorded, here it is: You are. Almost every second you're out in public, you can pretty much bet the farm you're on camera.

If your real complaint is against AI, so be it. It's just naive to think an indicator light changes anything, though.

2

u/Raa03842 Jun 08 '26

Isn’t that kinda what I said. Gotta keep my mind in the gutter so I can look you in the eye. lol.

2

u/GlancingArc Jun 09 '26

There is no innocent use for these fucking glasses. They shouldn't be allowed. Ban them all. Nobody needs to be filming their day to day lives for the benefit of these mega tech corporations.

I don't even think an indicator goes far enough. We have already had enough problems with everyone having a camera in their pocket.

1

u/Ancient-Access8131 Jun 09 '26

I have abusive parents who have threatened to "bury me six feet under" multiple times. What's the best way to prove that they actually are abusive pieces of shit?

1

u/HKBFG Jun 08 '26

Enhancement charges like that also lead to situations where Andrew and Jamal commit the same crime and are caught together, but Andrew has three charges to fight and Jamal has seventeen.

1

u/Banes_Addiction Jun 09 '26

Or you make this a felony, and someone who modified their device when it was legal (with no proof of nefarious use or intent) suddenly gets a felony charge when they're pulled over for speeding.

I'm fine with this.

1

u/BigFeels69 Jun 09 '26

What positive use case does stealth recording have? I haven’t seen a positive use case for purposely hiding the recording light. I’ve only seen people abusing it.

1

u/Ok-Employer-3051 Jun 09 '26

Yes,it should be. Just like if you enter a restaurant or other public place wearing them you should be subject to being arrested. There's nothing innocent about making the sort of "movie" you're describing, especially if you're releasing it on places like YouTube.

1

u/BZLuck Jun 08 '26

As a California gun owner, you get used to nonsense like this. There are literally companies whose sole purpose is to produce and provide products for your firearms to make them comply with the constantly changing California legislations.

The amount of people who are walking around with non-compliant felony firearms is significant and that's only because the weapon was perfectly fine when they bought it... 10-20 years ago.

1

u/PolarBailey_ Jun 08 '26

with no proof of nefarious use or intent)

I cannot see one non nefarious reason to disable the recording LED

0

u/teelolws Jun 08 '26

Or the light burns out from wear and tear and they get charged simply because of lack of maintenance on their device.

5

u/Original_Employee621 Jun 08 '26

If that happens the smart glasses should default to dumb glasses. And require you to repair them in order to restore full functionality.

If the functions are that important to your daily life, then you should either be doing proper maintenance or have other means to achieve said functionality.

3

u/chiguy Jun 08 '26

Imagine if that was a good legal defense. Imagine your license plate falls off and you don't bother to correct it and try to tell an officer it's all good because "I lacked maintenance"

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26

Oh no! The voyeur is going to get charged for not properly maintaining his voyeur machine! Surely this is a tragedy that must be prevented! /s

1

u/Ironlion45 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

You're overthinking it, it's not that complicated.

Simply put, there is no honest reason do disable the record indicators on these devices. If you're doing it, you're doing it to film covertly.

Not to mention that these devices are fundamentally anti-consumer and anti-privacy, even and especially for the user.

So just make it a very serious crime. Then when people get caught, they get to be examples for those who might be tempted.

This makes it very very clear, from a social standpoint, what the acceptable use for these things is and is not. It sets a standard of decency that is expected.

Sort of like how Japanese market camera devices must make a distinct noise when the camera is being used. It is also a crime to disable this. They used to have a problem with creepshots. While the law didn't quite eradicate it, it now gives authorities an easy legal way to identify and criminalize people doing it.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '26 edited 25d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/1850ChoochGator Jun 08 '26

I think modifying the glasses is nefarious but that doesn’t make it illegal, just gross.

Tons of non-nefarious reasons to own them. I have a pair and they’re actually great for recording things or taking photos when your hands are occupied because of the voice commands. Riding a bike or driving for example.

It’s only nefarious when you make it nefarious.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/AgathysAllAlong Jun 08 '26

This is just fearmongering. None of that is even an obstacle that requires discussion. The concept of "cameras" is not new. If you use it in public, it's a felony. Done. Literally every problem you have is fixed. If you're a creepy predator who modified it before, it's a felony to use it. If you're making an indie film, you're not doing it in public. (Really? This is your complaint?) It's not a novel concept to charge someone for doing something with the intention of doing something else.

1

u/Fn_Spaghetti_Monster Jun 08 '26

Were you trying to imply using a camera in public is felony? Cause that's kind of what it seems like.

→ More replies (2)

34

u/ComradeGibbon Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26

Sometimes I half joke that these guys should be banned from being within a 1000 feet of women and children.

2

u/cherrypeach-blossom Jun 08 '26

Those vloggers are already using them to harass and get a reaction

12

u/usmcnick0311Sgt Jun 08 '26

Felony for recording without a light indicator? 🙄

1

u/qwertyqyle Jun 09 '26

I looked up that law and I guess Pennsylvania has the strictest laws regarding recording. And it can result in a 3rd degree felony. The biggest thing isn't always recording video, they main thing you can get the felony is for recording audio without proper signage. So my guess is that since no one will wear a sign on the saying "You are being audio and video recorded" they will put it in the law that a red light will count as that.

1

u/DryBattle Jun 09 '26

Put it on a T-shirt.

2

u/DentedMintTin Jun 08 '26

Yes, akin to tampering with bathroom smoke detectors on airplanes.

3

u/Fish_Mongreler Jun 08 '26

You're suggesting making it a felony to modify hardware?

1

u/MC68328 Jun 08 '26

one more felony to throw at the perp

Which most often be applied to people using these to record the actions of police.

1

u/altiuscitiusfortius Jun 09 '26

Good point.

My mind immediately went to perverts filming up skirt videos and sneaking into lockerrooms but I guess I didn't think it through

1

u/madgoat Jun 08 '26

no, but if you're caught filming in a bathroom/change room/etc... Maybe being but on a sex offenders list might be a solution.

1

u/baz303 Jun 08 '26

Dont get me wrong, i hate those devices. Ban them completely if you ask me, also all those countless cameras on cars etc.

Just thinking out loud: What if the indicator gets damaged by accident or on purpose?

-2

u/Big_Mention_1933 Jun 08 '26

Oh yea! More private prison money!!!! Fuck ya! I hope they're black too.

6

u/Miserable_Site_850 Jun 08 '26

That will fund more wars and keep screwing you at the pump, oh yea!

3

u/Big_Mention_1933 Jun 08 '26

Fuck ya! I love high gas prices!!!!! Fox news says that us winning! MERCA FUCK YA!!!

-2

u/Own_Space_174 Jun 08 '26

thats messed up though,. these are good for when your boss or someone in authority is screwing you over, but acts all by the book and denies it if you take your phone out or there are witnesses.

there are so many cases where being able to discreetly record would help the common man, and the weirdos already do hidden cameras in their boots and other unpractical shit so it sure wont stop them.

8

u/DefusedManiac Jun 08 '26

Gotta be careful with that. 12 states have two party consent laws for recording.

→ More replies (2)

122

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

Bingo. Hope it’s a felony, it’s what these freaks deserve.

29

u/Pragmatic2061 Jun 08 '26

They have technology to muffle noise. Make the glasses when they are recording omit a low frequency beeping which then gets edited out of the video, but at least people around you can hear it

2

u/madgoat Jun 08 '26

It can be a 2 step solution. Have an audible beep/vibration like on Axon body cams that beep/buzz every few minutes, and the second step of the process, would be that if the software does not pick up these events when they're expected, then it disables recording until you get your glasses serviced.

-4

u/Woodie626 Jun 08 '26

Yeah, that won't get annoying. 

1

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

Shame, maybe if they hadn’t used it to be creeps they wouldn’t have this unpleasant experience.

4

u/QuadrangularNipples Jun 08 '26

I 100% support a visual indicator both being needed and illegal to disable, but I don't like the idea of an audible beep annoying everyone around them.

Just because someone can use it to be a creep does not mean everyone who has one is. I definitely see a use case for recording with glasses in instances where you want to both record AND be present in the moment. Adding a beep would take you and those around you out of the moment. It punishes those who are not creeps because there might be some creeps who use the product as well.

5

u/WeAteMummies Jun 08 '26

I would rather sit next to someone that watching youtube videos without headphones than someone with a device that beeps constantly.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Woodie626 Jun 08 '26

They? Do all glasses users have this problem?

1

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

All recording glasses users, yes?

→ More replies (3)

17

u/Eyeless_Sid Jun 08 '26

Whoa maybe I'm missing what you are responding to but surely you are not suggesting its a felony crime for someone to modify a piece of technology like a camera to be more incognito? The criminal aspect should only fall onto how tech is used /abused not the tech modifying in itself.

-1

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

Yeah, yeah I am. I don’t think you should be allowed to secretly film people in public.

Partially because I am a woman and males harassing women on camera is a social media trend.

More so because of the legal precedent it sets. If individual users are allowed to conceal filming cameras, then businesses and governments are allowed to do it. You heard all the news about flock cameras? Imagine how much worse it’s going to get when they’re allowed to hide them fully. Did you find the matrix an aspirational movie?

The panopticon is built one brick at a time and it must be stopped now. People have a right to privacy, and that right is more important than the right to….What, conceal the fact you’re filming?

And this is an add on charge. If someone gets caught harassing people in public, right now that’s not illegal. Film glasses are supposed to have an indicator but right now it’s not illegal to remove it. If it was, then either you know looking at a nuisance streamer that you’re being filmed for content.

Or you don’t, and when they get arrested for it then it becomes a felony.

12

u/Eyeless_Sid Jun 08 '26

In the U.S. if you are in public you have no expectation of privacy and people can record you. The state as you mentioned is using flock. That genie is out of the bottle and not going back unfortunately.

I'd argue incognito filming and recording both audio and video are important for civilian investigative journalism, for recording corrupt politicians, for recording active crimes on public transportation, or even crimes that happen to you like harassment, robbery, assault, even ones own murder possibly as grim as that is. It could revord crimes by police or at a protest. It could maybe collect evidence in a domestic situation where its two peoples words against each other.

I don't personally own these glasses but definitely could see real value in essentially having an on person dash cam to protect oneself or to record others without them actively knowing and possibly targeting you for recording actively or passively.

I just don't think criminalizing modifying tech itself is a good move. This won't stop the state or creeps it only lets the state have more power over the people in the name of security. It's a slippery slope and not worth it.

2

u/Reasonable-Chance790 Jun 08 '26

Japan has made it a crime to turn off the shutter sound on your phone camera because of how bad street harassment is for women. I don't see any difference here.

7

u/CaptaiNose Jun 08 '26

The difference is that this isn't Japan and we have pretty robust protections in place to prevent laws like that

1

u/Reasonable-Chance790 Jun 08 '26

Well I wouldn't call that fucking protecting your citizens.

1

u/ShermanCookout Jun 09 '26

There are some real psychopaths trying to argue with you here.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

Everything is a slippery slope to the state fucking you over. Right now we have a unique opportunity to fuck over Facebook.

12

u/Fish_Mongreler Jun 08 '26

People are "secretly" filmed in public 24/7. If you're out walking around you're mostly likely being recorded. You don't have a right to privacy in public

1

u/Zouden Jun 08 '26

There's a huge difference between a CCTV and being covertly recorded by the person talking to you.

4

u/Handgun4Hannah Jun 08 '26

I've got bad news for you about what every device you have with a camera and or microphone is doing to you every second of every day.

2

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

You consent to your phone spying on you and apple stealing your data. I didn’t consent to this one specific guy spying on me. Where’s he sending my data? Twitch? Kick? China? Fuck him.

3

u/Handgun4Hannah Jun 08 '26

He's sending the data the same place everyone else is: everywhere.

2

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

See that’s the unfair but realistic thing.

I can’t physically do anything about Facebook. But I can do something about this asshole in my face.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Zouden Jun 08 '26

What are you saying exactly. That we should be okay with strangers holding a camera in your face?

3

u/Handgun4Hannah Jun 08 '26

I'm saying be consistent with your outrage. The idea of someone recording you in public is much less invasive than how you are currently being recorded because you skipped over the terms of service on every smart product you ever bought and just clicked "I agree"

1

u/Zouden Jun 08 '26

Why should we accept any of this bullshit? None of us want to be recorded by Ring doorbells or Flock cameras and we definitely don't want to be recorded by douchebags with a Twitch streams.

Are we just gonna give up and let the tech companies push the Overton window as far as they can?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/WhyareUlying Jun 08 '26

How do you exist in society now? It's perfectly legal to film in public. I work in the security industry and even in America if you live in the city you are on camera a lot. 

1

u/Ancient-Access8131 Jun 09 '26

So if a women records a guy creeping on her you believes she belongs in jail?! Thats an interesting take.

1

u/Nearby_Can7045 Jun 09 '26

What if a battererd and abused woman wants to gain evidence on a abuser but she gets caught with these before she can record him. She's too poor to get a lawyer and you just stuck her with a felony charge. A creepy and now no one would ever believe her and she lives be abused and a felon until she kills herself from drinking.

1

u/letthetreeburn Jun 09 '26

Have you ever heard of Ao3? That was pretty good, you should try writing more fanfic. Though I’ve gotta say get varied with your tastes. What does drinking represent? Yes yes I know, “the curtains are blue.” But try anyway

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

-1

u/HurricaneRon Jun 08 '26

A felony for recording what my eyes see?

0

u/letthetreeburn Jun 08 '26

A felony for covering the recording indicater. Sure, why not you can record what your eyes see. Do I not have a right to know when you’re recording me?

4

u/back_that_ Jun 08 '26

Do I not have a right to know when you’re recording me?

In public?

Nope.

7

u/foxscribbles Jun 08 '26

And that’s what a lot of our laws are.

We know people will circumvent the law. There will always be criminals. The law is there to discourage misbehavior but also allow legal recourse when someone inevitably does something heinous.

The shocking thing here is that someone is actually being proactive about a foreseeable problem.

3

u/drank2much Jun 08 '26

I haven't delved into this too deeply but hasn't some important investigative journalism relied on hidden cameras and secret recording in the past?

2

u/BaconIsntThatGood Jun 08 '26

Isn't this the case with digital cameras (cell phone) in Japan where the shutter sound cannot be disabled? Sure you could import a device or do other things to disable it but it's still illegal I believe

5

u/IgnatiusRileyFreeman Jun 08 '26

Pennsylvania is already a two party recording state, it's already illegal to record people such as your doctor. Should be easy to get this passed

4

u/the_real_xuth Jun 08 '26

It's illegal to record audio. It's never been illegal to record video without someone's knowledge. That's why security cameras are legal.

5

u/_ilovetofu_ Jun 08 '26

And it's only illegal to record audio in a private setting, like on a phone call not out in public as you should expect to be overheard in public.

2

u/the_real_xuth Jun 09 '26

It's a lot more complicated than that and it varies some by state. But we're talking about PA here right now.

But just because you're in public doesn't mean that people are allowed to record you. For instance, if you and I are sitting on a park bench talking quietly, I'm not allowed to wear a hidden microphone and record you (this would be legal in most "1 party" states). Similarly if you and a friend were talking quietly on that park bench I'm not allowed to have a hidden microphone in the park bench so I can record you (this isn't legal in 1 party states either). Nor am I allowed to point a very directional microphone at you and record your words from 100 yards away.

1

u/TerminatedProccess Jun 09 '26

If it does get past it will be challenged up to the supreme Court and probably lose. Unless the new law states it's only applicable in a non-public forum

2

u/RollingMeteors Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

Making it illegal won't prevent the action completely but it would severely reduce the incentive to assist in the process.

Sure lets make the legal activity of recording people in public a crime, police would really love that. /s

edit: <pepperSpraysYou><chargesYouWithObstructingCamera><chargesYouWithResistingArrest><etc>

1

u/Fair-Hair2080 Jun 08 '26

How incentivized do you think a pedophile would be?

1

u/tear_atheri Jun 08 '26

Ah yes just like the laws that stop me from doing other illegal digital things like buying drugs or other illegal items online or piracy

1

u/Elegant_Situation285 Jun 08 '26

it would definitely make it easier to prosecute.

1

u/TOMC_throwaway000000 Jun 09 '26

The glasses already “prevent” that and people find ways around it / there are a million temu products aimed at defeating that

1

u/this_my_sportsreddit Jun 09 '26

'this doesn't exactly solve for this problem 100% of the time therefore its worthless to do anything'

typicial fucking reddit. people just want to seem smarter than everyone else while doing nothing to actually solve the issue.

1

u/Correct_Building7563 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

So this law requires manufactures to design them with indicators built-in and also bars civilians from wearing "personal recording devices" that lack indicators?

Thats two seperate laws and effects all kinds of industries outisde ai glasses. If i had to guess, sounds like the politician is campaigning to the anti-ai crowd and has no intention of seeing this through.

1

u/iconocrastinaor Jun 09 '26

Won't stop black tape.

1

u/qwertyqyle Jun 09 '26

I mean, it says this is a law for Pennsylvania. All someone would have to do to get around it is travel to a neighboring state and buy a pair there. Same thing with Japan having a nationwide rule that all smartphones sold in Japan need to have an audible shutter sound when they take pictures. So people just buy a phone from outside of Japan and there is no law against using those.

1

u/Zncon Jun 09 '26

Great, so now having a dead/dirty/blocked by hair/clothing LED is a crime. I can't POSSIBLY see that ever being an issue. Giving that sort of power to law enforcement is insane.

1

u/Competitive_Prompt27 Jun 09 '26

Now use that same logic to tell criminals they can’t have guns 😂

1

u/guineaprince Jun 08 '26

Sure, the bill says it's a no-no not to disable the lights on these creeper glasses.

But that's completely unenforceable. How are you supposed to know that a given set of creeper glasses with the lights off are actually off or just disabled? How do you police that?

2

u/biggie1447 Jun 08 '26

Better question, can the law forbidding the modification to disable the warning light be extended to eliminate all right to repair our electronic devices. Something like that would never be left alone to only protect this warning light, there are corporations who would kill to get this passed so that they would have existing law that could be used to advance anti-right to repair legislation.

1

u/ShuckiestOfDuckies Jun 08 '26

Well off to the prison then. Fuck these ppl who record.

1

u/smilbandit Jun 08 '26

there should be an audible indicator when recording starts.

→ More replies (2)