Apple Vision Pro headset is out and soon these headset users will be swarming the streets. In a way Apple Vision Pro are very sophisticated spy glasses. Shouldn't there be a standard way to enforce 'do not film' policy? Like a QR code that would work as 'robots.txt' and would inform smart glasses that you don't agree to be filmed?
Is there a reason you think this is more concerning than every person owning a telephoto multi-lens high fidelity digital camera and using it in public constantly?<p>I'm not saying that to belittle, I'm just wondering what you perceive the difference to actually be.
First, I appreciate the paranoia and privacy concerns.<p>Second, I doubt these will be flooding the streets any time soon., but yes eventually when the cost is lower and technology is more matured.<p>Third, we're already being filmed by corporate America. Door bell cameras, car cameras, people's phones and online image/video services, and just general corporate surveillance.<p>Sadly the cat's out of the bag so to speak and aside from wearing anti-recording clothing I don't think there's yet a practical way out of being surveilled.
I would be more concerned about the Meta Ray-Bans as they actually look like Sunglasses:<p><a href="https://www.ray-ban.com/canada/en/rayban-meta-smart-glasses" rel="nofollow">https://www.ray-ban.com/canada/en/rayban-meta-smart-glasses</a>
I think it’s unlikely people will be roaming the streets with these on, and I’m unclear why this is a challenge specific to the Vision Pro? In most jurisdictions if you’re in a public place you can’t prevent anyone filming you.<p>You’ve got a strong signal you might be filmed with the Vision Pro in the form of a gigantic headset, if you’re that worried avoid people with them on.
It’s crazy remembering the pushback from Google Glass a decade ago compared to now with people embracing the exact same thing (but worse) with open arms under the guise of it now supposedly being normal.
I would be far more concerned with the proliferation of Ring doorbells and cloud connected security cameras and systems.<p>I actually wonder if some kind of post processing could be used to remove people from videos/pictures but that would require some kind of registry which causes its own problems
FWIW this is a more of social issue rather than a legal one. At least in America, taking photos / videos of things which are plainly visible in public spaces is legal (different for private property). Caveat wiretapping laws and anything else relevant.<p>So for many common situations, the most you could do is make a polite request stating your preferences, without any expectation that it'd be enforced, unless Apple just feels like it as a policy decision.
Unless you are trolling, I'm genuinely curious why you think this headset will be "swarming the streets"?<p>What about this $3k product will make people go out in droves and buy it, to then go and use it in the streets? What killer app will convince people that it's OK to wear this when they are going out in public?
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(Brin_novel)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(Brin_novel)</a><p>One of the minor themes is old people obsessively, aggressively filming everything in public.<p>Note how well "robots.txt" works: the problem is bad actors tend not to follow "social convention" rules like that. The people that <i>do</i> adhere to such rules are probably not going to be the worrisome agents, anyway.<p>Furthermore; the laws are already ahead of you: if a store's surveillance video is requested by a court, and it has blocked out the people wearing "don't see me" codes; ... who does the court hold has destroyed evidence? Store owner that turned the feature on? Vendor that enabled it? Person who wore a mask with the activating code?
One thing I haven't really seen anyone mention is that there is no way to discreetly record someone with the Vision Pro. The whole front screen either flashes white (for photos) or stays white for the duration of a video recording.
Apple already scrubs faces in Apple Maps.<p>Simply get legislation passed that requires Apple scan all VP imagery and scrub your registered Facial ID from every repository. They'll need to create a Gait ID for videos and you'll need to register that.
There are already and have been dozens of devices that allow you to discretely film people. Not to mention the millions of surveillance cameras from business to doorbell cams.<p>Why the specific mention of a very non-discrete device other than recency? Calling them “very sophisticated spyglasses” makes it hard to take this seriously. Even though mass surveillance is very much an important topic of discussion.
I'm somewhat confident that something like the Meta Ray-Bans will become ubiquitous fairly soon. I suspect they'll have a more police body-cam type form factor and be sold as "safety" devices. The primary use will of course be TikTok etc, but will be sold as safety devices because there is just enough truth to it that'll make push back harder.
Funny when Google Glass was announced there was a huge amount of criticism about filming, and there were even signs on shops prohibiting Google Glass, even though it never became a consumer product at all, and even though Google Glass did have a recording indicator. Yet this is the first time I see someone concerned about Vision Pro filming.
Just get used to it. This is the future. Meta and Apple will eventually have a near real time point cloud of just about every public space imaginable. Once these things are slim enough to truly take off, there will be no going back.
I don’t think people are going to be wandering around with Apple Vision Pro on, there’s millions of Quest headsets out there that are lighter and have more battery life, and I’ve never seen one in private, much less in public.