>I think if people take out their phone and start pointing the camera at others in the changing room, most people would interpret that to not be ok and that's what we're discussing here.
Right, because there's very few plausible justifications for why someone would be aiming their phone in a changing room. The same doesn't apply to airpods.
>You're essentially setting the scene to where people cannot know if they're being recorded or not while a camera is always pointed at them. That's a problem. Least of all because law enforcement will need to investigate to determine if the law was broken on each complaint.
Is there any indication that you'll be able to get a video feed from airpods? If not, and you basically have to jailbreak them to do surreptitious recordings, what makes them more or less notable than all the other spy cameras you can get today and are more or less tolerated by the authorities?
>"But internal processing!" isn't quite the slam dunk defense you seem to think it is. It won't work like that in the real world, people being recorded while changing won't care about that distinction.
Do you think it's some outrageous breach of privacy that face id (and similar face scanning technologies) are constantly on the lookout for faces, including in bathrooms?
It doesn't today because they don't have cameras on them, it won't tomorrow if they do. People will definitely need to justify (maybe legally), why they're pointing the camera on their AirPods at people changing.
> Is there any indication that you'll be able to get a video feed from airpods?
You're just repeating the same "internal processing" point you've made, and that I've already pointed out isn't a legal or practical difference in the real world.
>You're just repeating the same "internal processing" point you've made, and that I've already pointed out isn't a legal or practical difference in the real world.
You're not answering my question. Do you or do you not think that face id phones are facing legal obstacles because they also have cameras that randomly turn on for "internal processing"? If face id phones get a pass, why don't you think airpods would get a pass?
Right, because there's very few plausible justifications for why someone would be aiming their phone in a changing room. The same doesn't apply to airpods.
>You're essentially setting the scene to where people cannot know if they're being recorded or not while a camera is always pointed at them. That's a problem. Least of all because law enforcement will need to investigate to determine if the law was broken on each complaint.
Is there any indication that you'll be able to get a video feed from airpods? If not, and you basically have to jailbreak them to do surreptitious recordings, what makes them more or less notable than all the other spy cameras you can get today and are more or less tolerated by the authorities?
>"But internal processing!" isn't quite the slam dunk defense you seem to think it is. It won't work like that in the real world, people being recorded while changing won't care about that distinction.
Do you think it's some outrageous breach of privacy that face id (and similar face scanning technologies) are constantly on the lookout for faces, including in bathrooms?