Whenever a new piece of technology comes out, I always think about how it might be used to assault and abuse women and girls. It’s sad that I have to, but that’s the world we live in.
Air tags – brilliant idea for someone like me for those moments when my husband is not around to use his superpower of Knowing Where I Have Put Things. Not so brilliant if they are used by an abusive partner, or even a stranger – most often a man on a woman – for stalking purposes.
At least if you have an app on your phone, like some members of my family do, you can choose to do that, or you at least know it is there. I had a message from my sister a couple of years ago asking me if I’d been murdered and put in a skip because the Google earth photos Life 360 uses were out of date. I was in fact at the Book Festival in Edinburgh’s new venue which had been a building site a couple of years before. But I knowingly gave her the ability to track my every move.
Similarly, if someone, again, most often a man, is filming, again, mostly women for God knows what purposes using a camera phone, at least you have a chance of being aware that he is doing it, although often you won’t be aware. Not so much if he is using smart glasses, which allow you to see an augmented reality and can be used as a camera. As a friend told me “I’ve been filmed by men before and at least with a phone you can see that they are doing it.”
These things have the potential to bring a whole load more pain to an already unsafe world for women and girls.
So it was really good to see that the party is aware of this. Yesterday they put up a social media image saying:
Nobody should be secretly filmed through smart glasses and have it shared with millions online.
Liberal Democrats are demanding stronger safeguards, including a ban on convicted sex offenders being able to purchase them.
How on earth is that solution enforceable?
And anyone with nefarious purposes doesn’t have to purchase them. They just have to borrow a mate’s.
And if it is enforceable, surely anyone convicted of domestic abuse, particularly coercive control, should not be allowed within a million miles of these things.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but education and awareness is a huge part of it, as is making sure that anyone who films someone with or without their knowledge and shares it online faces very serious consequences that significantly restrict their liberty.But the biggest problem with yesterday’s social media post was the accompanying image:
Under no circumstances should serious abuse be trivialised with a not particularly smart quip.
It might be an idea when producing posts on sensitive issues to run them past the official organisation representing women in the party, Lib Dem Women.
I have discussed it with a fair few women, members of Lib Dem Women and not, who were not impressed by this. Comments ranged from “Yuck” to “This is not on. Not a matter for lame jokes.””Not befitting and not funny” “It’s beneath us as a party who have done so much to get this issue recognised.”
So I hope that in the future we will see more reflection and consultation before making these sorts of posts.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A podcast on Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down
We are in the fight of our lives: Ed Davey
My view on a bland Lib Dem conference
David Allen
David Raw
Paul R
Johnmc
Jack Nicholls
13 Comments
Should the purchase of the Specs be allowed only by people who have a license to use them – given only for a valid and useful reason?
“Should the purchase of the Specs be allowed only by people who have a license to use them – given only for a valid and useful reason?”
e.g. a qualified and practising optician to supply the glasses to a customer with major vision problems?
https://www.blindveterans.org.uk/sight-loss-resources/so-you-re-thinking-of-getting-smart-glasses/
Surely a reasonable approach is to just campaign to get the recording camera feature removed ? Specs that simply give info without recording shouldn’t be any more objectionable than a phone or tablet I hope ?
Yeah I think you should have to have a license, and you should be able to lose that license
This is a good call for consideration, rather than kneejerk reactions, from Karen. But I think it is massively too narrow trying to focus the question on one variety of potential misuse. Smartphones are the ideal instrument for taking upskirt photographs, but we have not made it an offence to possess a Smartphone, or banned them entirely. We focus on the actual offence.
I have a blind friend who uses their AI glasses (“Meta” is a particular brand, “Smart Glasses” is quite good), to tell them which products in the supermarket are vegetarian. I have another friend in the USA who values the simultaneous translation from other languages to the in lens screen (not in the UK yet); transformative for blind people and non-lipreading deaf people.
I have a set of Ray-Ban meta glasses. I currently use them to report road defects, to gather evidence of the hundreds of anti-wheelchair barriers on footpaths in my town which block disabled people from accessing our Green Flag parks, footpaths for which they are lawful users, and other things.
I use them when cycling locally and not wearing a camera-suitable helmet, with Operation SNAP to try and start dealing with illegal pavement parking which places elderly and disabled at risk, and to begin to survey that activity; when using a Smartphone people can become quite aggressive when their motoring crimes are documented, even when assured it is research to support lobbying.
So yes – debate, but it needs to be a complete debate, not one driven by fear.
@Nonconformistradical .
i do not think that would work.
Consider how many times Doctors, when asked to consider reporting eyesight defects wrt driving licences, or even asked to check for eligibility to access NHS services, respond with “We are Doctors, not Police”.
@Matt – yes, I know a blind man who finds them life transforming, as you say – but they don’t need to record for that. I hear what you say about other uses, just as I hear other people on this thread. FWIW my optician sells the subtitle glasses that translate – Evan G2 I think they are called, John Rose Eyecare in Kingston can help you if you need a set. I tried them out of curiousity – they are remarkable. (They have no camera, but they do make a transcript of what they hear).
The key issue is that whilst filming is generally legal in public, AI glasses process the audio and video with AI, transfer and often store the data on company servers and use it to train their AI. All without notifying or gaining the consent ofthose being recorded. This is very likely illegal in the UK and EU under GDPR laws.
I believe that AI glasses could be very useful for several disabilities and have discussed this with disability rights campaigners and regulators. Many share my concern that Metas AI glasses are not suitable as an assitance device and that people should not use them as they breach the privacy of others. Blind people should not be used to collect data for corporations to sell.
Meta face several class action legal cases for the misuse of data from AI glasses, largely due to an exposé by Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) and Göteborgs-Posten (GP) revealed that footage captured by Meta’s smart glasses, including videos of users undressing, using the toilet, engaging in sexual activity, and handling sensitive financial documents like bank cards, had been reviewed by contractors working at a subcontractor facility in Nairobi, Kenya.
https://almcorp.com/blog/meta-ray-ban-ai-smart-glasses-privacy-investigation-uk-us/
NB RayBan state that the light that indicates the glasses are capturing data does NOT light up if the data is being sent to Meta and not recorded to the users own account.
@Tim – thanks for your reply.
I think the approach to ban eg video recording is very problematic, when we have equivalent devices (hidden cameras eg buttonhole, mobile phone etc) where the identical feature is NOT banned, and in trying to impose controls on disabled people.
To sharpen it in one sentence, that would prevent women having the capacity discreetly to record harassment in the street – and then it will be “he said she said”, rather than a video evidenced open-and-shut case.
Our legal framework in this area normally regulates behaviour, not technical capability. Charges for filming people in a loo will be for invasion of privacy, voyeurism etc, not possession of a spy cam.
On the issue for disabled people, it is nearly half a century (mid-1980s approx) since we moved on from disabled people being “them” to whom “we” do things, to disabled people being “part of us” who are full members of our society. The slogan “nothing about us without us” is correct.
We can’t say “they do not need to video record”. How can we possibly know, until we have the chance to find out?
I think that what has happening politically here is that we have a normal media driven outrage bus on one point, and someone at Lib Dem Towers thought they could create Clear Orange Water. But it is only one aspect, and I think they have chosen the wrong topic for that.
@John Macinnes
I think data privacy is one issue amongst several – such as not killing the benefits, and I think we need to think beyond Meta to the generic. Smart Glasses will be ubiquitous before long, just as mobile phones are, and will be £50 from new or existing brands before we know it.
AIUI the GDPR/DP issue is the same as when Apple or Google backs up my phone contents to the cloud, is it not? I think control of data location is important – not least because of the USA now being run as a banana republic plus laws (eg 2018 “Cloud Act”) where the US Govt can require companies to give access to their cloud-stored data. For that reason various European Governments are already throwing eg Microsoft software out of their public sectors, and developing “sovereign European” cloud storage.
I have Ray-Ban Meta glasses for my prescription glasses, as they are just catching up with features such as adjustable nosepieces and temple tips. I can opt out of AI, and use of the cloud, via Settings. It’s not there yet – we need it to be “Opt in”, as with some website features.
@John Macinnes
I think data privacy is one issue amongst several – such as not killing the benefits because of a moral panic. I think we need to think beyond Meta to the generic. Smart Glasses will be ubiquitous before long, just as mobile phones are, and will be £50 from new or existing brands before we know it. And they will have different collections of features.
Meta’s version does not video unless instructed to do so, and other brands already record for an hour or more – eg BleeqUp ranger do this, but are not AI integrated; any upload is via an App, but have for example an intercom setup for groups. Ray-Ban Meta glasses have opt out of AI, and use of the cloud, via Settings. It’s not there yet – we need it to be “Opt in”, as with some website features.
AIUI the GDPR/DP issue is the same as when Apple or Google backs up my phone contents to the cloud, is it not? I think control of data location is important – not least because of the USA now being run as a banana republic plus laws (eg 2018 “Cloud Act”) where the US Govt can require companies to give access to their cloud-stored data. For that reason various European Governments are already throwing eg Microsoft software out of their public sectors, and developing “sovereign European” cloud storage.
To those who are suggesting specs should only be purchasable if you have a license/valid reason: So if it’s sunny and you therefore want a pair of sunglasses, would you have to go to the optician first to get a certificate confirming you intend to go out and walk in the sunshine? Or ditto if you want to mow your lawn or do some DIY for which eye protection is advisory?
@Simon
We are debating Smart Glasses that make POV videos etc, not normal specs.