You assume my premise, but you’re wrong. The fact of the matter is Glass gives an individual the opportunity to record what’s going on around them, unbeknownst to those around that individual. If some guy is holding up his phone or his camera, it’s obvious what he’s doing. If someone is walking around with Glass, who’s to say when he’s recording or not? I’ll admit it’s a fuzzy line, or gray area, we’re talking about here – but Glass makes it even fuzzier, or closer to the other side of that line – or even less obvious when the line is crossed.
The guy hiding out with the DSLR hundreds of feet away is in a whole other league and doesn’t really apply here.
You missed my point. Most people, knowing the laws or not (which are not as broad-brushed and black/white as you imply), won’t care about them when it’s their kid involved.
Plus, doesn’t the photographer’s intent have something to do with their protection? For example, if some guy is at a park shooting photos and gets my kids in a shot and says it’s going to be in a brochure for the city, you’re telling me I have no right to tell him no? Or would that be a scenario where I have rights?
I see two recurring themes here… #1 – how is glass any different / worse than using your cellphone? And #2 – 1st amendment rights with regard to Glass taking pictures in public, etc etc.
1) The fact of the matter is if someone is standing in front of you, facing your direction, but looking at a person 5 feet to your left or right, they could still be recording you with Glass and you wouldn’t know it. If they have a cellphone out, it’s much more obvious what they’re trying to do.
2) (and also applies to #1) The issue isn’t necessarily privacy as much as it is ease of access… For example – laws put in place allowing certain records (property, marriage, wills, etc) to be public info were put into place well before the internet. It took great effort to get to those records, despite the fact they were public. Now, thanks to the internet, any Joe Schmoe off the street can get to any of those records for free (or a small fee). The records are now handed to the public on a silver platter, rather than sitting “publicly” available in a single location.
Point being, “public” does not (or should not) imply a free-for-all of information or content. That was not the original intent of lawmakers who had no clue about the internet. Just go to a public park and start taking pictures that might be including some parents’ kids and see what happens…
