WEBVTT - Should Meta’s “pervert glasses” be banned? 0:00:03.720 --> 0:00:06.740 Yep, here I am, just minding my business at the airport, 0:00:07.940 --> 0:00:10.940 and this guy starts to talk to me. Didn't know 0:00:11.000 --> 0:00:11.960 he was recording me. 0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:16.040 They've been dubbed pervert glasses, and with good reason. 0:00:16.600 --> 0:00:19.120 So this morning I wake up and my brother sends 0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:22.930 me this post on Instagram. No idea he recorded this 0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:24.810 whole conversation with his glasses. 0:00:25.810 --> 0:00:26.750 Is that just creepy? 0:00:26.770 --> 0:00:27.590 He never asked. 0:00:27.610 --> 0:00:30.290 But this week the federal government ruled out an import 0:00:30.310 --> 0:00:33.870 ban on smart glasses... as concerns about the technology rise 0:00:34.090 --> 0:00:36.650 and examples of their misuse flood the internet. 0:00:36.970 --> 0:00:39.110 Hey, um, I want to introduce myself to you. I 0:00:39.130 --> 0:00:41.750 think you're beautiful. Oh, God, you did this at church. 0:00:41.770 --> 0:00:42.590 Would you just go away? 0:00:43.030 --> 0:00:43.650 You and your glasses. 0:00:44.070 --> 0:00:44.370 Go away. 0:00:44.850 --> 0:00:46.530 What are you talking about? 0:00:46.550 --> 0:00:47.490 Go away. Just trying to be nice. 0:00:47.670 --> 0:00:48.130 Go away. 0:00:52.290 --> 0:00:54.150 I'm Ruby Jones, and you're listening to 7am. 0:00:56.010 --> 0:01:00.190 Today, Associate Dean of Interaction Technology and Information at RMIT, 0:01:00.610 --> 0:01:04.770 Dana McKay, on the rising popularity of smart glasses and 0:01:04.790 --> 0:01:08.560 the dangers if wearable surveillance technology becomes widespread. 0:01:15.400 --> 0:01:18.720 It's Thursday, September 3. 0:01:22.200 --> 0:01:25.510 So Dana, smart glasses have been around for a while now, 0:01:25.569 --> 0:01:28.110 but they're really just starting to take off in the 0:01:28.150 --> 0:01:32.350 last few months. We've seen that Kylie Jenner PR campaign 0:01:32.450 --> 0:01:36.330 with the meta glasses in supermarkets in Australia, in Kmart, 0:01:36.370 --> 0:01:38.190 you can buy them now for less. 0:01:38.050 --> 0:01:40.149 Than $ 100. 0:01:39.610 --> 0:01:43.470 So tell me, as the tech becomes more accessible and 0:01:43.510 --> 0:01:45.770 more popular, what are the dangers here? 0:01:46.230 --> 0:01:49.360 Look, we're used to people having phones and cameras, you know, 0:01:49.460 --> 0:01:52.720 but you can see when someone's pointing a phone at you. 0:01:52.880 --> 0:01:57.560 It's really obvious. We're used to certain professions wearing body-worn cameras. 0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:00.040 But again, you can see that that camera is being 0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:00.900 pointed at you. 0:02:01.500 --> 0:02:02.690 So it's really obvious. 0:02:03.420 --> 0:02:07.150 The problem with these things is they look just like glasses, 0:02:07.250 --> 0:02:12.170 like they're not totally obvious. So essentially, they're a really 0:02:12.370 --> 0:02:17.400 non-obvious piece of recording technology that point a camera at 0:02:17.480 --> 0:02:20.320 whatever your eyes are pointed at. And, you know, that 0:02:20.380 --> 0:02:22.800 can be in places where you wouldn't expect to find 0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:26.130 a camera, you know, gym bathrooms, change rooms, all of 0:02:26.190 --> 0:02:28.650 these types of places that we would normally expect to 0:02:28.669 --> 0:02:32.230 be private, private conversations with people that you maybe wouldn't 0:02:32.310 --> 0:02:34.109 expect to share a conversation with. 0:02:34.450 --> 0:02:38.180 The girl that was giving me the wax or the esthetician, 0:02:38.380 --> 0:02:41.860 whatever you want, the waxer, she was wearing meta glasses 0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:45.519 and I didn't notice it at first because And then 0:02:45.720 --> 0:02:47.940 it was like, I'm like looking at her and I'm 0:02:47.960 --> 0:02:51.480 like looking at her glasses and then I'm like, are 0:02:51.500 --> 0:02:52.690 you wearing meta glasses? 0:02:53.070 --> 0:02:55.770 You know, your doctor or there was a recent case 0:02:55.810 --> 0:02:58.030 of a surgeon who was told he wasn't to wear 0:02:58.090 --> 0:03:00.549 his recording glasses during surgery anymore. 0:03:00.630 --> 0:03:04.060 So there's a lot of opportunity for covert recording. 0:03:04.400 --> 0:03:07.380 But then after that, I kind of like shut down 0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:10.720 and I could not stop thinking like, Could this girl 0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:11.840 be filming me right now? 0:03:12.200 --> 0:03:15.309 And we've already seen plenty of cases of the glasses 0:03:15.380 --> 0:03:20.350 being misused. There's these videos around of men who are 0:03:20.510 --> 0:03:22.410 filming women that they're trying to pick up. 0:03:22.710 --> 0:03:24.030 Hey, you are a very attractive lady. 0:03:24.050 --> 0:03:25.230 Yeah. 0:03:25.590 --> 0:03:26.170 Is there a sister? 0:03:26.590 --> 0:03:28.049 That's my daughter. Yeah. 0:03:28.350 --> 0:03:30.790 Can I take her on a date? 0:03:30.830 --> 0:03:31.850 Hi, what's your name? 0:03:33.150 --> 0:03:36.470 And that's what's led to the glasses being called pervert glasses. 0:03:37.170 --> 0:03:39.730 Can you describe some of those videos to me? 0:03:40.010 --> 0:03:43.210 So the first case I remember of seeing this in 0:03:43.250 --> 0:03:47.880 Australia was a police complaint was made about a man 0:03:47.970 --> 0:03:51.520 who had, I suspect, one of the first pairs of 0:03:51.560 --> 0:03:54.700 these glasses to enter Australia in the country. And he 0:03:54.740 --> 0:03:58.370 was wandering down Bondi Beach and talking to women in 0:03:58.410 --> 0:04:01.810 bathing suits and then uploading their interactions to Instagram. 0:04:02.150 --> 0:04:05.580 Yo, can I get your number? You are sexy. Yo, 0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:07.620 can I get your numbers? Yo, I'm gonna need all 0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:08.560 your numbers like right now. 0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:09.700 Yo, cough that shit up. 0:04:10.060 --> 0:04:11.820 And the woman like, hang on a minute, I don't 0:04:11.860 --> 0:04:14.240 remember being recorded. What's going on here? 0:04:14.260 --> 0:04:17.920 And New South Wales is not what's called a single 0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:19.040 party recording state. 0:04:19.060 --> 0:04:21.060 So it If he wanted to talk to them, he 0:04:21.140 --> 0:04:23.729 had to have their permission to make that recording and 0:04:23.770 --> 0:04:26.850 he didn't. There's been a really good piece of research 0:04:26.910 --> 0:04:30.710 come out of the University of Sydney just recently looking 0:04:31.050 --> 0:04:34.250 at what kinds of videos are being posted on Instagram 0:04:34.440 --> 0:04:39.280 from these smart glasses. And they found that some vast proportion, 0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:43.160 I think over half of these kind of pickup videos 0:04:43.540 --> 0:04:46.580 veered then into not just being pickup videos, but actual 0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:50.960 sexual harassment and You know, women visibly being uncomfortable, visibly 0:04:51.120 --> 0:04:55.050 asking not to be recorded, and that consent wasn't observed 0:04:55.089 --> 0:04:55.370 at all. 0:04:56.290 --> 0:05:00.470 And Meta says that its products have safeguards. Talk to 0:05:00.529 --> 0:05:03.650 me about what's actually in place there. What are they 0:05:03.690 --> 0:05:06.530 talking about when they say that? So there is a 0:05:06.790 --> 0:05:11.190 recording light in the side of the glasses that flashes 0:05:11.390 --> 0:05:13.270 while the glasses are recording. 0:05:13.650 --> 0:05:16.010 And Meta have recently released. 0:05:15.690 --> 0:05:19.230 An update to disable the camera if that light is 0:05:19.290 --> 0:05:23.190 tampered with. So they say that's enough of a safeguard, 0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:25.039 but it's not real consent, right? 0:05:25.120 --> 0:05:26.720 Like, oh, there's a flashing light. 0:05:26.820 --> 0:05:30.880 Okay, I'm a woman surrounded by three men wearing these cameras. 0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:33.839 Maybe I don't feel physically safe to ask them to 0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:37.530 take them off. And even with the flashing light, that 0:05:37.589 --> 0:05:39.789 case in Sydney, the. 0:05:39.710 --> 0:05:42.570 Bondo Beach case, the guy had the flashing light going, 0:05:42.589 --> 0:05:45.089 but it was really hard to see in broad daylight, right? 0:05:45.370 --> 0:05:48.580 And there are ways around it. 0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:52.490 Probably even with this new update that say, oh, if 0:05:52.910 --> 0:05:55.810 someone's using it when they've meddled with the camera, they 0:05:55.830 --> 0:05:56.830 won't be able to record. 0:05:56.950 --> 0:05:58.839 I'm sure there are still ways to do it. 0:05:59.290 --> 0:06:02.330 There are some cases to be made for the tech 0:06:02.370 --> 0:06:05.920 being useful, though, in terms of maybe someone with impaired vision. 0:06:05.940 --> 0:06:09.060 Can you run me through what people say the benefits are? 0:06:09.480 --> 0:06:13.599 So turning more to the accessibility space, there are lots 0:06:13.640 --> 0:06:16.720 of things that the camera can do, like, for example, 0:06:17.300 --> 0:06:20.570 read a menu and If you're visually impaired and repeat 0:06:20.890 --> 0:06:22.170 into your ears because they have. 0:06:22.089 --> 0:06:24.760 A little speaker in them as well. What's on that menu? 0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:29.740 I have heard examples of them being used to do translation. 0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:33.570 So someone who was traveling with their partner whose family 0:06:33.589 --> 0:06:35.570 were from a country where they didn't speak the language, 0:06:35.610 --> 0:06:35.830 you know. 0:06:36.260 --> 0:06:39.580 They were able to, in real time, get a kind. 0:06:39.420 --> 0:06:42.240 Of subtitles for what people were saying on the glasses 0:06:42.320 --> 0:06:47.450 and stuff. So it can improve accessibility really significantly. 0:06:47.630 --> 0:06:51.450 I heard an example yesterday of a young man who 0:06:51.830 --> 0:06:55.000 was neurodivergent, who was using the recordings from the glasses 0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:59.620 to assess his own social capabilities in an interaction, for example. 0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:04.340 So there are significant accessibility uses, but I guess the 0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:08.440 question I would then have is, why can't we have 0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:12.180 the accessibility without Meta getting all of the information? Because 0:07:12.260 --> 0:07:14.600 it's not great for someone who needs it for accessibility 0:07:14.660 --> 0:07:17.300 reasons to be uploading their whole life to Meta either. 0:07:20.460 --> 0:07:24.040 Coming up, is a blanket ban on smart glasses the answer? 0:07:34.700 --> 0:07:39.540 We are not specifically in this consultation consulting on an 0:07:39.620 --> 0:07:42.700 import ban. And as I'm sure you'd appreciate, an import 0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:46.910 ban is a matter that would have consequences across government, 0:07:47.310 --> 0:07:53.110 including across trade, foreign affairs and other potential legal obligations. 0:07:53.290 --> 0:07:56.150 This week, the government ruled out a blanket ban on 0:07:56.170 --> 0:08:00.210 the import of these glasses. That's something that the Greens 0:08:00.310 --> 0:08:02.650 and privacy advocates have been pushing for. 0:08:03.170 --> 0:08:05.700 Well, the idea of the import ban is something we 0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:07.960 can do right now. For once, it would be nice, 0:08:07.980 --> 0:08:11.180 just for once, if governments got ahead of the tech 0:08:11.220 --> 0:08:14.640 wave and took some protective action. And then we had 0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:17.630 12 months in which to get our privacy laws up 0:08:17.650 --> 0:08:18.250 to scratch. 0:08:18.650 --> 0:08:22.450 Would you have liked to have seen them banned until 0:08:22.950 --> 0:08:25.570 our kind of legal framework can catch up? Look, that's 0:08:25.620 --> 0:08:29.160 an interesting one. I don't know how effective a ban 0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:32.040 would have been, right? Like Kmart sold out of the 0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:35.319 $ 90 version. So how many thousands of pairs of these 0:08:35.360 --> 0:08:37.800 things are already out there in the community? 0:08:38.460 --> 0:08:41.420 And also, it just pushes it underground. 0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:45.140 If something's banned, it makes it a lot harder to 0:08:45.220 --> 0:08:49.709 regulate it. Whereas building good legislation as quickly as possible, 0:08:49.790 --> 0:08:53.079 please and thank you, does give us a framework for 0:08:53.150 --> 0:08:56.120 how to respond to them in society and does prepare 0:08:56.179 --> 0:08:58.260 us as well as a society for how to deal 0:08:58.300 --> 0:09:02.459 with those social interactions of like, hey, this is not 0:09:02.500 --> 0:09:05.219 a space where those recording glasses are welcome. Like if 0:09:05.520 --> 0:09:09.609 they're officially banned, then saying, I want you to take 0:09:09.650 --> 0:09:12.050 them off when I'm talking to you because you're my doctor, 0:09:12.090 --> 0:09:12.790 that gets a bit. 0:09:12.730 --> 0:09:13.410 Weird, right? 0:09:13.450 --> 0:09:16.590 Whereas if there's rules that say they're not allowed in 0:09:16.650 --> 0:09:20.370 doctor surgeries, well, then that becomes a much easier conversation. 0:09:20.490 --> 0:09:22.569 And if the doctor is wearing them when you walk in, 0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:26.500 you kind of go, well, you're already operating outside the rules, so. 0:09:26.340 --> 0:09:27.280 Let's not go there. 0:09:27.700 --> 0:09:30.540 And the government has announced some changes to privacy rules, 0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:32.980 including the right to erasure. 0:09:33.059 --> 0:09:34.240 Tell me about how that would work. 0:09:34.809 --> 0:09:38.130 So the right to erasure means, and this is an 0:09:38.309 --> 0:09:41.050 interesting one because it's going to give us rights that 0:09:41.090 --> 0:09:43.750 we've never had before that have existed in Europe for 0:09:43.790 --> 0:09:46.069 quite a long time, actually, the right to be forgotten, 0:09:46.710 --> 0:09:49.150 where you can say to a tech company, all right, 0:09:49.350 --> 0:09:52.210 everything to do with me or that one specific video 0:09:52.250 --> 0:09:54.810 to do with me, you have to scrub your system 0:09:54.870 --> 0:09:58.350 of it. So essentially you find a video on Instagram 0:09:58.370 --> 0:10:01.079 that was taken of you on a beat. It's really unflattering, 0:10:01.140 --> 0:10:03.939 you can then contact the tech company and they will 0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:04.579 have to get. 0:10:04.500 --> 0:10:04.850 Rid of it. 0:10:05.780 --> 0:10:08.900 What it doesn't address, though, is that once something's on 0:10:08.940 --> 0:10:11.740 the internet, there's chances that it doesn't. 0:10:11.500 --> 0:10:15.010 Exist just in that one tech ecosystem, for example. 0:10:15.090 --> 0:10:17.420 So You know, if you know your ex took a 0:10:17.440 --> 0:10:20.439 video of you, you can ask Meta to erase that 0:10:20.480 --> 0:10:24.400 because you know it exists. And that's probably, you can 0:10:24.600 --> 0:10:27.860 reasonably assume that that's then been scrubbed from the internet 0:10:27.920 --> 0:10:28.360 as a whole. 0:10:28.460 --> 0:10:31.679 But if your ex uploads a video of you to Instagram. 0:10:32.580 --> 0:10:34.720 You can hope that it's gone from the internet as 0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:36.880 a whole, but there's a chance that someone screen grabbed 0:10:36.940 --> 0:10:38.040 it or reshared it or. 0:10:38.220 --> 0:10:40.730 Whatever, whatever. So that makes it a bit more difficult. 0:10:41.450 --> 0:10:44.170 And so in light of that, the safety commissioner is 0:10:44.230 --> 0:10:47.550 recommending automatic blurs on anyone being filmed. 0:10:48.270 --> 0:10:49.230 Can you tell me about that? 0:10:49.470 --> 0:10:52.670 Yeah, so the eSafety Commission came out with a whole 0:10:52.710 --> 0:10:57.290 bunch of recommendations, including automatic blurs of anyone being filmed 0:10:57.510 --> 0:11:01.100 and a delay before uploading even to Meta's own servers, 0:11:01.290 --> 0:11:03.500 much less, you know, making something public. 0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:06.980 Blurring of people's faces would mean. 0:11:06.800 --> 0:11:10.700 That it was much harder, for example, to reuse the 0:11:10.740 --> 0:11:13.900 content in ways that were really problematic. 0:11:14.540 --> 0:11:16.040 It would also mean. 0:11:15.820 --> 0:11:19.750 That, you know, you wouldn't have to walk around worrying 0:11:19.830 --> 0:11:23.790 about where your face was being captured, you know, in 0:11:23.809 --> 0:11:27.790 the public infrastructure, you know, as someone watching you while 0:11:27.809 --> 0:11:30.090 you're reading your book and frowning on the train or 0:11:30.150 --> 0:11:34.199 as someone, you know, capturing your face as you get 0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:37.160 more and more impatient standing in the checkout line, going 0:11:37.179 --> 0:11:38.860 to turn you into some horrible. 0:11:38.540 --> 0:11:39.580 Meme on Instagram. 0:11:40.320 --> 0:11:44.849 So that paired with the delayed upload so that you know, 0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:47.790 you have a chance to think about something before it 0:11:47.830 --> 0:11:50.610 goes to meta might be a. 0:11:50.630 --> 0:11:56.150 Good start, shall we say. The technology is evolving so quickly, though. 0:11:56.170 --> 0:11:59.829 I mean, next year's AirPods are expected to have inbuilt 0:11:59.970 --> 0:12:03.170 cameras in them. So it might, I think, some people 0:12:03.220 --> 0:12:07.439 seem like it's a losing battle here, not worth fighting. 0:12:07.559 --> 0:12:10.000 So why do you think it's important to try? 0:12:10.040 --> 0:12:13.570 What are the implications if surveillance tech like this becomes 0:12:13.650 --> 0:12:16.309 just the kind of norm? So we know that being 0:12:16.370 --> 0:12:19.990 surveilled constantly is actually really bad for our mental health. 0:12:20.230 --> 0:12:25.429 We also know that men experience more sextortation, so where 0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:28.579 someone takes an image of them and then says, I'm 0:12:28.740 --> 0:12:30.880 going to share this image if you don't pay me. 0:12:31.540 --> 0:12:36.220 But women experience more significant social consequences if images of 0:12:36.260 --> 0:12:40.890 them in sexual situations or unclothed become public. So There 0:12:40.910 --> 0:12:44.960 are really negative consequences and it's much, much worse for 0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:47.740 anyone in the rainbow community. Just generally forget it. It's 0:12:47.840 --> 0:12:50.460 terrible for a lot of them, especially if they're not out. 0:12:53.100 --> 0:12:56.880 So it's really important to protect the physical and mental 0:12:56.960 --> 0:13:00.830 well-being of people, I think, to limit the surveillance. Now, 0:13:01.460 --> 0:13:04.660 You know, we've had a lot of technological revolutions and 0:13:04.760 --> 0:13:06.520 potentially people are going to say, oh, it's. 0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:07.730 Just another moral panic. 0:13:07.990 --> 0:13:10.929 But I do think that the law is one of 0:13:11.010 --> 0:13:14.429 the ways that we as a society adjust to new 0:13:14.490 --> 0:13:20.470 technologies and that considering what it means to be constantly 0:13:20.690 --> 0:13:24.170 under surveillance is something that we have to do as 0:13:24.220 --> 0:13:24.790 a society. 0:13:25.010 --> 0:13:27.540 What are we comfortable with as a society? Where are 0:13:27.580 --> 0:13:31.590 we comfortable for recordings to take place? what companies are 0:13:31.610 --> 0:13:36.050 we comfortable with having access to those recordings? And I 0:13:36.090 --> 0:13:40.970 think good legislation doesn't talk about the individual technologies. It's like, 0:13:41.410 --> 0:13:44.229 here's how we deal with covert recording as a legal 0:13:44.309 --> 0:13:47.950 problem and as a legal challenge. Here's how we deal 0:13:48.070 --> 0:13:51.290 with where you're allowed to record someone. Here's how we 0:13:51.320 --> 0:13:55.380 deal with recording a conversation. And I think that means 0:13:55.440 --> 0:13:58.140 that we're not just playing whack-a-mole with the technology. We're 0:13:58.200 --> 0:14:02.360 actually setting out parameters for how we want to interact. 0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:04.900 With each other as a society, because ultimately the tech 0:14:04.940 --> 0:14:08.000 is kind of irrelevant. This is about how we interact. 0:14:07.580 --> 0:14:10.640 With each other, human being to human being, and setting 0:14:10.679 --> 0:14:14.270 parameters for good interactions as a society is definitely something 0:14:14.330 --> 0:14:16.290 that the law has a big role to play in. 0:14:17.150 --> 0:14:19.070 Well, Dana, thank you so much for speaking with me. 0:14:19.390 --> 0:14:20.510 Not a problem, Ruby. 0:14:20.550 --> 0:14:21.770 It was lovely to chat with you. 0:14:34.660 --> 0:14:37.660 Also in the news, the federal government says it expects 0:14:37.700 --> 0:14:40.860 Telstra to act immediately on the recommendations of a report 0:14:40.900 --> 0:14:44.870 into the network's nationwide outage in July. The report found 0:14:44.910 --> 0:14:46.970 a lack of money and too few staff led to 0:14:47.010 --> 0:14:49.710 the outage, which crippled the network as well as train. 0:14:49.490 --> 0:14:51.050 Services in Sydney and Melbourne. 0:14:51.710 --> 0:14:55.790 A separate investigation could see the telco fined up to $ 30. 0:14:54.830 --> 0:14:56.220 Million per breach. 0:14:57.060 --> 0:14:59.920 And Ray Hadley has testified that he helped complainants see, 0:14:59.980 --> 0:15:03.330 get in touch with police... over allegations of sexual touching 0:15:03.370 --> 0:15:07.750 against Alan Jones. Jones' team are arguing that Hadley's fierce 0:15:07.830 --> 0:15:11.350 rivalry with Alan Jones motivated him to encourage the indecent 0:15:11.430 --> 0:15:16.030 assault allegations, revealing expletive-ridden texts where Hadley wrote that Jones 0:15:16.150 --> 0:15:19.940 needed to be destroyed. Jones is standing trial on 22 0:15:19.940 --> 0:15:22.780 counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual touching 0:15:22.820 --> 0:15:23.600 without consent. 0:15:23.980 --> 0:15:27.900 He denies the allegations. I'm Ruby Jones. This is 7am. 0:15:28.240 --> 0:15:28.820 Thanks for listening. 0:15:32.340 --> 0:15:32.590 Thank you.