Feel free to point out the hypochrisy. I'll remind you that sharing a video you took of someone without their consent is not the same as recording them and keeping the video strictly for yourself
This person was not trespassing on Meta property and nothing indicates that he was harassing employees who refused to be interviewed. It is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to record people in public places.
You don't need someone's consent to record in public, and if any of the employees objected to the publication of the recording, they could consult with an attorney about a portrait rights claim. Such a claim should be adjudicated by a court, not Facebook.
And let's be clear about the context here: these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online, and they're also used to record all sorts of junk/nonsense ("pranks", pickup artist BS, etc.).
Meta doesn't seem to have a problem with content recorded with these glasses being posted on its platforms, even when it's objectionable, because it's literally everywhere. The only problem here, obviously, was that he was recording Meta employees.
FALSE! It's legal to record in public spaces and share it if you are not targeting any individual in particular. What the author did was instead purpusefully focus on those particular employees.
Author made the people he was recording unrecognizable. So even though he focused on specific employees he didn't violate their right to privacy which means it isn't illegal.
Supposing the video has not been edited further, since the original was taken down, their voices were not censored and there are people in the video who were not in the background and who clearly didn't want to be filmed. I agree that the law has many intricacies, but here I think it's much more the case of their privacy being broken and their consent being ignored
Yes, you're claiming that it's illegal to record people in public in the Netherlands. This is incorrect.
Under Article 139a of the Dutch Criminal Code, you are legally allowed to record any conversation in which you are a participant. You don't need to inform or obtain permission from another party.
There's no law that forbids recording people in public spaces. GDPR and portrait rights claims may be implicated, but if Facebook wants to take the position that it removed this man's videos as an adjudication of claims those recorded never brought themselves, it begs the question: why is it selling its glasses and allowing them to record in the Netherlands in the first place?
"these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online"
This to me is wild. I use the glasses to film my kids and share it on private hard-drives with grandparents, that's it. It's wild to me that I can surreptitiously film someone on the street and publish it online for views, and the only recourse the person has, is to go to court? Seems insane.
Why does Hollywood require a release but Youtube does not?
EDIT: People are getting hung-up on my use case. But that's not the question posed here.
The chances are that Meta is looking at those videos you take of your kids even when they say they aren't.
They've played fast and loose with copyrighted material for years. They company was founded on the principle of breaking privacy law, as highlighted in Zuckerberg's famous Dumb Fucks conversation.
You might want to think twice about this. The videos from those glasses are uploaded and used for AI training, for which they are also reviewed by humans in Kenya, according to the explainer from Bits Of Freedom (with English subs, here: https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/campagnes/gluurbril/)
Posted article has nothing on my data ending up in Kenya. If you mean it'll be used by Meta Analytics, that's an opt-in feature (easy Fines in California if they violate this)
I agree posting videos of people without their consent should be illegal, and I thought it was? Why does Hollywood require a release form but YouTube does not?
But that's regardless of whether it was filmed on Meta Glasses or a pocket camera.
It is bizarre to me that you think Meta will be a good steward of your data, regardless of what they've told you or what the law says they can and can't do.
This would be an added fine, because its not just "oopsie I used your data for analytics when you didn't opt-in", it'll be "actually I went ahead and used it for other purposes too".
As someone who trains AI for a living, the resultant fines are definitely not worth my data.
> If you mean it'll be used by Meta Analytics, that's an opt-in feature (easy Fines in California if they violate this)
And, as we all know, tech companies and especially Meta never ever lie or trick you. They were never caught red handed sharing your information and violating your privacy despite claiming the opposite. They also are never fined because they are so careful, and the fines and consequences are always big enough to make them clean up their act.
Oh, wait, for a moment I forgot about the past two decades.
Some auditors in the USA did that already. I was surprised to see that, since here in Europe, people have a much more negative view of Facebook's spyglasses. I think it is similar to getting money from Facebook directly, just as other "sports" people do product placement, such as for Red Bull (Dom Tomato; and many in the bboying scene). I find this annoying to no ends, but money convinces people. My problem is that I am not interested in ads and no "argument" can convince me otherwise. Since I am not interested in ads, I don't watch it and I don't buy from such companies. It places some restrictions onto me, since many companies advertise, in particular the big ones, but it also means I get to know smaller companies better. (Sometimes there is a de-facto monopoly, so I can not always avoid all companies and their ads; in particular for things you really need, such as food and so forth.)
> the only recourse the person has, is to go to court
Well, typically, if you are in public, you can do just about anything with regards to recording. In private the laws are a bit different. Either way it is a barrier.
I cant just take a photo of a person or even car on the street and just share it online unless its clear the car or person is not the central point of the photo standing alone.
But you raise an interesting point: if this would be against the law in Germany, why is Facebook waiting for these glasses to be banned? It never should have made these available in Germany, and should be using technical means to ensure that they cannot function inside of Germany's borders.
So it's just more proof of the hypocrisy. Meta doesn't care about the privacy of the plebs.
In Sweden for instance it's a bit in-between (unless the law has changed). You're allowed to film in public if you're using a non-stationary camera, but stationary cameras require a permit.
That's an important caveat. We kind of have something similar, in that if you install CCTV, and if it captures an area where people would expect privacy (ie, looking through a window, or into someone's back garden ... which has its own caveats around being a public place or not) you have a right to have that area removed from video coverage.
Yeah, Germany is different here. I am not 100% sure, but in Germany it is allowed if you are not focusing on any particular individual person. It is difficult to argue in absolute terms, which is why most consider public photos forbidden completely (unless for private/personal, very narrow use). Nowadays, in Germany, it has helped me to consider everything forbidden, unless it is explicitly allowed somewhere.
That's pretty understandable, and I've no particular issue with it (although I'm now aware I broke quite a few photo- and video- laws when I was last in Berlin ;) )
> is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to record people in public places.
it's perfectly legal to record but publish, especially in but not limited to a commercial context without explicit consent violates portrait rights under the GDPR in the EU. And I strongly suspect if you posted a video in which people explicitly object to being filmed and flag that on Facebook or other platforms it will get taken down.
Where do you get the "without their consent" bit from?
The hypocrisy is probably located around here:
> "I've been making satirical videos about all kinds of things for ten years: Gaza, Ukraine, refugees. Funny videos that push boundaries and provoke discussion. But I've never experienced a video being removed before.
I agree, I cannot control what other people will do. Are you applying this fear to all other facets of your life? I guess not, since that would mean you'd live in a state of constant fear and paranoia.
Instagram is full of videos of guys harassing and antagonizing people in public as "pranks". And this is not some coincidence, since both products are from the same company, they basically unleashed this for engagement.
Corporate censorship. Do we want such a future in general,
where big companies decide onto you what you can see and what
you can not see? These walled digital gardens they built up
are already such a huge issue.
Now I don't depend on CIAbook, formerly
known as Facebook, in any way, shape or form. And I don't use
Suckerberg's Spyglasses either - hopefully others feel in a
similar way, but unfortunately money convinces people, and I
noticed a few "auditors" using spyglasses allegedly for
"protection" (though, why they don't use normal vide cameras
instead, beats me - perhaps they are not truthful). I fear
that the spyglasses will be a success since Suckerberg is so
sold on spying on mankind. If Google were not to exist, Facebook
would be the number #1 evil company right now.
The title is misleading - it sounds like they specifically went there to harass employees by filming them, and Meta took down the videos for harassment, like they routinely do if this is reported on their platforms. I'm really not sure what the issue is.
This hypocrisy is not at all surprising. The modus operandi for these people has been rules for thee, but not for me for quite a while now.
Feel free to point out the hypochrisy. I'll remind you that sharing a video you took of someone without their consent is not the same as recording them and keeping the video strictly for yourself
This person was not trespassing on Meta property and nothing indicates that he was harassing employees who refused to be interviewed. It is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to record people in public places.
You don't need someone's consent to record in public, and if any of the employees objected to the publication of the recording, they could consult with an attorney about a portrait rights claim. Such a claim should be adjudicated by a court, not Facebook.
And let's be clear about the context here: these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online, and they're also used to record all sorts of junk/nonsense ("pranks", pickup artist BS, etc.).
Meta doesn't seem to have a problem with content recorded with these glasses being posted on its platforms, even when it's objectionable, because it's literally everywhere. The only problem here, obviously, was that he was recording Meta employees.
FALSE! It's legal to record in public spaces and share it if you are not targeting any individual in particular. What the author did was instead purpusefully focus on those particular employees.
Author made the people he was recording unrecognizable. So even though he focused on specific employees he didn't violate their right to privacy which means it isn't illegal.
https://www.anp.nl/blog/305/privacywetgeving-mag-je-filmen-o... is a decent article(in Dutch) about some of the complexities of Dutch privacy law when it comes to filming people in public spaces.
Supposing the video has not been edited further, since the original was taken down, their voices were not censored and there are people in the video who were not in the background and who clearly didn't want to be filmed. I agree that the law has many intricacies, but here I think it's much more the case of their privacy being broken and their consent being ignored
Wouldn't the ones in the background match exactly this part of your point though?
> if you are not targeting any individual in particular.
Yelling "FALSE" doesn't make you correct.
You could use Google, ChatGPT, Claude, etc. to educate yourself about the law before you post.
Are you claiming I didn't inform myself? Can you provide some proof for this accusation?
Yes, you're claiming that it's illegal to record people in public in the Netherlands. This is incorrect.
Under Article 139a of the Dutch Criminal Code, you are legally allowed to record any conversation in which you are a participant. You don't need to inform or obtain permission from another party.
There's no law that forbids recording people in public spaces. GDPR and portrait rights claims may be implicated, but if Facebook wants to take the position that it removed this man's videos as an adjudication of claims those recorded never brought themselves, it begs the question: why is it selling its glasses and allowing them to record in the Netherlands in the first place?
>you're claiming that it's illegal to record people in public in the Netherlands
No I haven't, you should re-read what I actually wrote.
> portrait rights claim
Note that the employees were not recognisable; their faces were blurred out.
"these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online"
This to me is wild. I use the glasses to film my kids and share it on private hard-drives with grandparents, that's it. It's wild to me that I can surreptitiously film someone on the street and publish it online for views, and the only recourse the person has, is to go to court? Seems insane.
Why does Hollywood require a release but Youtube does not?
EDIT: People are getting hung-up on my use case. But that's not the question posed here.
The chances are that Meta is looking at those videos you take of your kids even when they say they aren't.
They've played fast and loose with copyrighted material for years. They company was founded on the principle of breaking privacy law, as highlighted in Zuckerberg's famous Dumb Fucks conversation.
You might want to think twice about this. The videos from those glasses are uploaded and used for AI training, for which they are also reviewed by humans in Kenya, according to the explainer from Bits Of Freedom (with English subs, here: https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/campagnes/gluurbril/)
Posted article has nothing on my data ending up in Kenya. If you mean it'll be used by Meta Analytics, that's an opt-in feature (easy Fines in California if they violate this)
I agree posting videos of people without their consent should be illegal, and I thought it was? Why does Hollywood require a release form but YouTube does not?
But that's regardless of whether it was filmed on Meta Glasses or a pocket camera.
It is bizarre to me that you think Meta will be a good steward of your data, regardless of what they've told you or what the law says they can and can't do.
Fines can be just a cost for the business of training AI if they deem it valuable enough. Is there any enforcement apart from fines?
This would be an added fine, because its not just "oopsie I used your data for analytics when you didn't opt-in", it'll be "actually I went ahead and used it for other purposes too".
As someone who trains AI for a living, the resultant fines are definitely not worth my data.
> If you mean it'll be used by Meta Analytics, that's an opt-in feature (easy Fines in California if they violate this)
And, as we all know, tech companies and especially Meta never ever lie or trick you. They were never caught red handed sharing your information and violating your privacy despite claiming the opposite. They also are never fined because they are so careful, and the fines and consequences are always big enough to make them clean up their act.
Oh, wait, for a moment I forgot about the past two decades.
Some auditors in the USA did that already. I was surprised to see that, since here in Europe, people have a much more negative view of Facebook's spyglasses. I think it is similar to getting money from Facebook directly, just as other "sports" people do product placement, such as for Red Bull (Dom Tomato; and many in the bboying scene). I find this annoying to no ends, but money convinces people. My problem is that I am not interested in ads and no "argument" can convince me otherwise. Since I am not interested in ads, I don't watch it and I don't buy from such companies. It places some restrictions onto me, since many companies advertise, in particular the big ones, but it also means I get to know smaller companies better. (Sometimes there is a de-facto monopoly, so I can not always avoid all companies and their ads; in particular for things you really need, such as food and so forth.)
> the only recourse the person has, is to go to court
Well, typically, if you are in public, you can do just about anything with regards to recording. In private the laws are a bit different. Either way it is a barrier.
Wasn't all that long ago people posted pictures of their kids on social media. Someone is going to watch your 12 year old in a swimsuit.
From my private hard-drive?
And unless Meta want's to pay me $1000's in fines (pretty sure my videos are worth less to them), sharing with Meta analytics is opt-in.
It's illegal to record people in public spaces in Germany. Not sure how NL is important here, did I miss something?
It wasn't in Germany, and my understanding is that in Germany, the issue isn't the video, it's the recording of the audio conversation.
Anyway, still not applicable in the Netherlands.
In Germany it would also be about the video.
I cant just take a photo of a person or even car on the street and just share it online unless its clear the car or person is not the central point of the photo standing alone.
Only few exceptions on that
And? This wasn't in Germany.
But you raise an interesting point: if this would be against the law in Germany, why is Facebook waiting for these glasses to be banned? It never should have made these available in Germany, and should be using technical means to ensure that they cannot function inside of Germany's borders.
So it's just more proof of the hypocrisy. Meta doesn't care about the privacy of the plebs.
> Roel Maalderink visited the company's Amsterdam office
> It's illegal to record people in public spaces in Germany.
That's wild. In Ireland, there's no expectation of privacy in a public place, so you can record without issue.
In Sweden for instance it's a bit in-between (unless the law has changed). You're allowed to film in public if you're using a non-stationary camera, but stationary cameras require a permit.
That's an important caveat. We kind of have something similar, in that if you install CCTV, and if it captures an area where people would expect privacy (ie, looking through a window, or into someone's back garden ... which has its own caveats around being a public place or not) you have a right to have that area removed from video coverage.
Yeah, Germany is different here. I am not 100% sure, but in Germany it is allowed if you are not focusing on any particular individual person. It is difficult to argue in absolute terms, which is why most consider public photos forbidden completely (unless for private/personal, very narrow use). Nowadays, in Germany, it has helped me to consider everything forbidden, unless it is explicitly allowed somewhere.
It's because of history. That's why Germany also resisted Google Street View initially.
That's pretty understandable, and I've no particular issue with it (although I'm now aware I broke quite a few photo- and video- laws when I was last in Berlin ;) )
> is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to record people in public places.
it's perfectly legal to record but publish, especially in but not limited to a commercial context without explicit consent violates portrait rights under the GDPR in the EU. And I strongly suspect if you posted a video in which people explicitly object to being filmed and flag that on Facebook or other platforms it will get taken down.
Users of these devices already share that data with Meta.
Where do you get the "without their consent" bit from?
The hypocrisy is probably located around here:
> "I've been making satirical videos about all kinds of things for ten years: Gaza, Ukraine, refugees. Funny videos that push boundaries and provoke discussion. But I've never experienced a video being removed before.
It is not as you feel any different when you are being recorded. Once recorded, you don't know what they will do with the video.
I agree, I cannot control what other people will do. Are you applying this fear to all other facets of your life? I guess not, since that would mean you'd live in a state of constant fear and paranoia.
>since that would mean you'd live in a state of constant fear and paranoia.
we do indeed live in a low trust society as of now.
If anyone wants to see the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o
He did harass them a bit. I'm looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!
Hopefully the Streisand effect will be in full force on this one.
Great idea for protests outside meta offices. Just stand on the public right of way outside the entrance, smiling in your meta ray bans.
In China the government controls the discourse. Here it's the corporations.
And you let it happen.
Who remembers the picture of inside Zuckerberg's home that got leaked with the grotesks living their private lives?
Instagram is full of videos of guys harassing and antagonizing people in public as "pranks". And this is not some coincidence, since both products are from the same company, they basically unleashed this for engagement.
Yes, having a taste of their own medicine.
taste of their own poison*
Corporate censorship. Do we want such a future in general, where big companies decide onto you what you can see and what you can not see? These walled digital gardens they built up are already such a huge issue.
Now I don't depend on CIAbook, formerly known as Facebook, in any way, shape or form. And I don't use Suckerberg's Spyglasses either - hopefully others feel in a similar way, but unfortunately money convinces people, and I noticed a few "auditors" using spyglasses allegedly for "protection" (though, why they don't use normal vide cameras instead, beats me - perhaps they are not truthful). I fear that the spyglasses will be a success since Suckerberg is so sold on spying on mankind. If Google were not to exist, Facebook would be the number #1 evil company right now.
meta's pervert glasses
Epstein Glasses by Meta. For people who don't do consent.
Corporation under no obligation to uphold journalistic standards. In other news, water still wet.
The title is misleading - it sounds like they specifically went there to harass employees by filming them, and Meta took down the videos for harassment, like they routinely do if this is reported on their platforms. I'm really not sure what the issue is.
Having watched the video, this hardly meets the standard of 'harassment' or bullying. This is a vox pop, that people can (and do) walk away from.