Facebook Says It Violates The Terms Of Service Of Their New Snoopervision Glasses If You Cover The 'I'm Recording You' LED
from the like-that'll-work dept
You've likely heard by now that Facebook has launched their own version of sunglasses with a built-in camera, in partnership with Ray Ban, called "Ray Ban Stories" (because, seriously, which brand is cooler right now? Facebook? Or Ray Ban?). Lots of people are comparing it to the failed disaster that was Google Glass (which gave rise to the term "Glassholes") or SnapChat's similar product, and lots of people are calling out the potential privacy issues associated with these snoopervision glasses. To be honest, personally I feel like at least some of those concerns are typical moral panics, akin to people freaking out when the camera itself was invented, such as this story about early Kodak cameras:
The appearance of Eastman's cameras was so sudden and so pervasive that the reaction in some quarters was fear. A figure called the "camera fiend" began to appear at beach resorts, prowling the premises until he could catch female bathers unawares. One resort felt the trend so heavily that it posted a notice: "PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR KODAKS ON THE BEACH." Other locations were no safer. For a time, Kodak cameras were banned from the Washington Monument. The "Hartford Courant" sounded the alarm as well, declaring that "the sedate citizen can't indulge in any hilariousness without the risk of being caught in the act and having his photograph passed around among his Sunday School children."
And, frankly, if someone wants to record people surreptitiously, there are tons of ways to do so today already that are a lot easier (and often a lot cheaper) than an ugly pair of sun glasses. I think the bigger issue in the long run is going to be coming up with a new set of social norms and social cues for what is and what is not appropriate here. But that's a debate for another day.
What amazes me about the rollout of Facebook's glasses is that they seem to think that they can stop people from covering the LED light that goes on when you're recording... by claiming that it's a terms of service violation. That's what a Facebook VP told Buzzfeed writer Katie Notopoulos, whose article on the whole Facebook glasses thing is absolutely worth reading. But this bit is just pure silliness and makes Facebook look ridiculous:
Although you can’t turn off the light on the glasses or through the app, I was able to do this the old fashion way: I put a tiny piece of masking tape over the LED light and colored the tape black with a Sharpie. It covered it up perfectly.
Sometimes to stop the creeps, you have to become...a creep.
Alex Himel, VP of AR at Facebook Reality Labs, informed me over a Zoom chat that taping over the LED light was a violation of the terms of service of the glasses, which prohibit tampering with the device. Be warned.
Yeah, that's not how any of this works. Claiming that putting a piece of tape over a light is "tampering" that violates the terms is highly questionable. Second, thinking that that even matters is just exceptionally silly. If people want to cover the light, they'll cover the light. At least confront that head on rather than with a "ooooh, you'll break your warranty" kind of nonsense. But this is Facebook and Facebook is going to do Facebook type things and believe that the terms of service rules all.
Beyond the ridiculousness of this response, it drifts into right to repair territory and questions of ownership. Facebook has taken over enough of people's lives as is. They shouldn't be out there telling you what you can do with physical products you purchased, even if they're associated with the product.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cameras, glasses, led lights, ownership, privacy, ray ban stories, right to repair, stories, sunglasses, tape, terms of service
Companies: facebook, ray ban
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think "Facebook Reality Labs" says it all: they're trying to commoditize Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field.
That's not the way it works, guys.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CYA
There's a handful of two party consent states when it comes to recording. I bet the LED feature is there primarily to appease the lawyers. If someone files a lawsuit, FB can at least sort of claim that they took steps to notify everyone in the area that their glasses were actively recording. Because of their policy, they might be successful in court at shifting liability onto the users, and could maybe get regulators off their back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First of all, spy cams are cheap and easy to acquire so anyone who wants to surreptitiously record others can do so less obviously than with stupid looking Facebook glasses.
People hold up their phones while using them all the time and it's already not clear when they're filming.
Even when Google Glass was being tested, I didn't understand the attacks on so-called glassholes. It wasn't being recorded that was the problem. It was the knowledge that they were being recorded that drove people irrationally crazy in public places where they didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CYA
IANAL, but I highly doubt such a lawsuit would stand. Holding Facebook liable for the illicit use of their devices would be akin to holding Victorinox legally responsible for a murder that was carried out using a Swiss Army knife.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait until Elton John gets a pair
and sticks a gnome's butt over the LED, https://www.smoothradio.com/artists/elton-john/elton-johns-glasses-fashion-outfits/ - see #9
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: CYA
Or like holding Facebook or Twitter responsible for users' posts - how crazy would that be!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who'd have thought after just a few years, Zuckerberg would have gotten bored masturbating to users uploaded videos, and now wants to tug it to live streams?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Limited CYA
The whole covering the light violates the TOS seems a pretty transparent CYA clause. But it is also useful for threatening journalists who show how to do it, thus violating the FB TOS and "justifying" FB banning their accounts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
this article is missing the point. the fb vp is saying that fb is not legally liable. he couldn't give a rat's ass if people actually do it, or for addressing any privacy issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
stares in wtf
Anyone want to tell them about all of the people violating FaceBooks TOS in thousands of ways everyday on their platform, who rarely face 'punishment'?
Our spyglasses are better than the ones available at 1/3 the price... we have an led.
Something something French people assaulting the guy who had his GoogleGlasses bonded to his face b/c they KNEW he was recording them.
I was in Target in the dressing room and I know I saw a light on this creepy guys glasses I know he was filming me to see what price he could get from the sex traffickers for me!
I was walking in the parking lot and saw the light on the glasses on a guy walking towards me, before he could kidnap me I maced him and then shot him!
Yep... no possible way this could go wrong... nope nope nope... we have a TOS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someone (Apple?) filed a patent on a recording light that was an integral part of the camera and lens itself. Couldn't cover up the light w/o covering up the lens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]