Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohyoutravel | Hacker News Reader

This is the worst take I’ve seen all day. I’m going outside.

Why? Airports are probably the most surveilled places aside from casinos. Why should corporations or the establishment have a monopoly on surveillance and the footage, especially when the footage is (presumably) for the purposes of scrutinizing the corporation/establishment itself? I think the "this call is recorded for quality control purposes" principle should apply. If you're recording, I should be able to record too.

I enter a building in acknowledgement that I am going to be under surveillance. If I don't agree then I don't enter that building.

I do not board a plane to be discreetly recorded by a pair of glasses. It's creepy and just privacy invasive.

>I do not board a plan to be discreetly recorded by a pair of glasses. It's creepy and just privacy invasive.

That's not what's under debate though.

>British Airways Warns Filming Crew With Meta Smart Glasses Could Get Your Tickets Cancelled

>The reported change builds on restrictions introduced earlier this year against photographing or filming BA employees without their consent. Livestreaming employees without permission is also prohibited.

>>“This includes filming, live streaming or taking photographs of any BA crew or other colleagues without their consent.”

Emphasis mine.

If they're doing this to protect their passengers privacy, they're doing a really good job at hiding that.

I don’t think anyone really objects to you being able to record video in public, but do object to you being able to secretly record video in public. There’s a huge difference imho between you holding up a phone to record an interaction and surreptitiously recording one with glasses.

The article makes clear that BA prohibits any sort of filming of their employees without consent.

>I don’t think anyone really objects to you being able to record video in public, but do object to you being able to secretly record video in public.

See the quotes in my other comment. It's pretty clear it's not about being "secretly" recorded.

Seems like a fair question. There is a reasonable current of thought out there that rights and responsibilities should be reciprocal between businesses, government, and individuals.

In contrast, this is the only reasonable take. Given the extensive history of large multinational corporations abusing the rights of consumers with impunity, letting one of the two parties in any such dispute record the other, but not the reverse, is obviously unfair and unreasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com