Hacker News Reader

Comment by practicemaths | Hacker News Reader

First, I appreciate the paranoia and privacy concerns.

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.

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.

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.

View on HN

This 100%. You also have to keep in mind that taking photos in public spaces is protected under the first amendment in the US. Yes, the first amendment has become a bit unpopular lately but even then, fighting this battle is going to be extremely difficult.

What I do wonder is how private space owners will deal with AR/VR.

How do they deal with it now? An AR/VR rig is more obvious than a smartphone and not nearly as ubiquitous, so usage should stand out more. Seems like a sign or other notification would be enough to stop all but the most obnoxious assholes and influencers.

I don't see why new privacy standard can not appear now even though a problem has gotten bad already. There is no need to have this defeatist attitude.

I am all ears for suggestions on how to actually do that then.

What will the regulations be?

How do you get the government to want to implement such policies?

How do you enforce them?

How do you get around corporate lobbying against changes to their business operations?

I think the roadmap could be as follows:

1. A standard appears to communicate that you don't want to be filmed (let's say QR code) 2. Some consumer-friendly company follows to implement it 3. EU publishes a directive in Europe for devices to respect this requirement (with some exceptions for security surveillance, etc) 4. Eventually even some of USA companies follow on with this practise

I have no answers to your questions but a few things ping ponging around in my head landed on "lewd content". This would not help government regulations and might even violate some rules but much like law enforcement officers blasting copyrighted music to keep videos of them offline there could probably be something similar to keep recorded content from being rebroadcasted / published.

Perhaps there is a way to create clothing that when viewed by the human eye appears "normal" but then when viewed by a camera will appear highly offensive and perhaps even contain keywords that big platforms will go out of their way to censor.

Maybe it's a dumb direction to think on my part or a dumb idea in general, I don't know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com