The backlash to Meta's AI glasses has been so fierce that the company is reportedly now working on a version with no camera.
    • Triumph@fedia.io
      34·
      1 month ago

      One, there’s only a couple of two party states. Two, that only applies to telecommunications. You can secretly record audio and video anywhere that it’s legal to unsecretly record it.

      • NekoKoneko@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        1 month ago

        Not trying to be argumentative or pedantic, but:

        1. There are eleven states (California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington), covering around 1/3rd of the US population with all-party-consent wiretap laws.
        2. States have slightly different wording, but like hidden camera statutes, it typically applies to electronically recorded communications and not just telecommunications.
        3. That isn’t really correct. I assume you’re talking about the exception where there is no expectation of privacy. There are separate hidden camera laws that require disclosure at times even in public places, and even for wiretap some statutes are written in such a way that even public places with semi-private areas (e.g., a separated dinner table at a restaurant where your conversation may not be heard by others) may still support an expectation of privacy.

        In all, since wiretap statutes are criminal statutes and Meta executives in theory could be charged if Meta is not only enabling but also directly receiving recordings from users, it’s a pretty crazy risk they’re taking.