<\/p>\n
\u201cThe hardware is improving, but the country\u2019s weak understanding of consent gives an invisible camera far more room to cause harm,\u201d he says. Simply being in a public place is often treated as implicit consent to be photographed or filmed. He says the help line has been seeing an uptick in cases involving covert recording and nonconsensual footage.<\/p>\n
\u201cViolations of this access have increased significantly and are expected to rise further in India,\u201d he says. People are recorded in medical settings, during private encounters, and in public spaces. Those with less power to object are particularly vulnerable, he adds.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s either trolling or it\u2019s playing pranks on them and then recording them\u201d he says. Abusers \u201cdo target people who are a little more unaware or susceptible to how this technology-facilitated harm works.\u201d<\/p>\n
The law in India has not caught up with this new kind of harm, says Apar Gupta, a lawyer and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. \u201cIndia\u2019s laws against voyeurism and the sharing of intimate images were designed largely around more recognizable forms of abuse,\u201d he says, citing offenses such as secretly filming someone undressing, using a toilet, or engaged in a sexual act. \u201c[The laws] offer limited protection when someone is secretly filmed in an ordinary public setting and the footage is then used to humiliate them,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n
Social media platforms\u2019 rules do offer another route to removing harmful content filmed with smart glasses, but it\u2019s not an immediate remedy. \u201cUnder India\u2019s current rules, platforms can have up to 36 hours to act on certain complaints\u2014a window that can be long enough for a video to be downloaded, copied, and circulated elsewhere,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n
The problem of filming without consent seems set to grow. According to the Financial Times<\/em>, some internal prototypes of new Meta glasses include AI features that continuously photograph and listen to the wearer\u2019s surroundings, enabling the glasses to later recall what they saw or heard. These functions wouldn\u2019t activate the external recording indicator, making it impossible for bystanders to know when information about them is being collected.<\/p>\n Meta told us it intends to keep the LED for active capture, such as taking photos or recording video, but not for AI features that interpret the wearer\u2019s surroundings. Its argument is that a constantly blinking light could eventually become so commonplace that people stop noticing it.<\/p>\n But that logic risks putting society in a perpetual game of catch-up, says Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law at Boston University. \u201cTech companies have an incredible ability to push these tools out faster than society can meaningfully acclimate to the threat,\u201d he says. \u201cBy the time society catches up, there\u2019s already a degree of normalization.\u201d<\/p>\n For Shubnam, the danger is not just that people may become accustomed to being recorded. It is that they will become accustomed to seeing versions of themselves that they never chose to put out into the world.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cBeing comprehended along the lines of a narrative that I didn\u2019t compose or consent to\u2014that imposed recognition makes you feel like you\u2019re powerless in how people know you,\u201d they say.\u00a0