The rules regarding audio recording are different from video. This is why many security cameras do not actually record audio.
I think the laws are different primarily due to the different pace of audio vs. video recording technology. Audio recording of phone calls etc. has been feasible for a long time so laws were written about that. Ubiquitous video recording has really only become a thing in the past 2 decades or so.
Absolutely. I feel like the pace of adoption has been mostly driven by per-bit storage costs falling (and high efficiency codecs).
Above all else, people will do useful things with computers once the price to do so matches the utility. And we're far on the other side of that with cameras.
I can't wait to see what the next decade+ does to all the Facebook-esque camera startups. It's going to be hard to monetize your customer's video feeds once regulation clamps down.
I don’t believe there are laws prohibiting video surveillance in public by businesses. Some states have laws prohibiting filming in locations where one expects privacy. Other states allow filming in private spaces as long as the business notifies employees and customers they are being filmed.
Yea most states also have a pretty clear "if the device is obvious" law. It's also why businesses put up "smile you are on camera" signs, especially if their camera isn't immediately recognizable.
There are some rules concerning security cameras as well. I recently found out that private CCTV (at least in the UK) can't record public areas (e.g only your porch). Someone got sued over this recently.
There have been some stories in HN about opting out of face recognition as well. Maybe the laws for video are different as the other reply says, but there are privacy concerns in there as well.
edit: here's a list of GDPR fines (not comprehensive as I only see 2 in the UK). If you filter by CCTV you'll find a couple of examples from Austria:
http://enforcementtracker.com/
Face coverings are not legal in public in all countries, but even where they are, why should someone concerned about creeping surveillance go to great lengths to modify their own behaviour because someone else is unwittingly breaking the law because a product they bought was made by someone who couldn’t be bothered to do it right?
So this outrage is in the Netherlands. Security cameras may not be pointed by businesses at public space (which we have a lot of unlike the US). The local government itself may place cameras though but private parties, what kind of nightmare situation is that?
And in public or private space when there are cameras there needs to be signs everywhere to warn and inform you.
So in the Netherlands at least.. Google recording a conversation with someone who doesn't know Google is recording is definitely illegal.
The question is: will they prosecute? Then it becomes a geopolitical question because we are a small country with a disproportionate number of Google datacenters.
So to summarize:
- This is definitely illegal in the Netherlands
- There is no consent of others participating and you really do need that
- Fine print is not consent: consent of terms and conditions requires a majority (determined by polling or common sense of a judge) of users to be aware and knowledgeable what they consented to.
- there won't be prosecution by the Dutch public prosecutor.
- there will be a lobby for the EU to buttrape Google but it may use different reasons or context
