[saag] Re: Suggested Project
Michael StJohns <[email protected]> Mon, 9 Mar 2026 13:24:31 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Eric - Given that we're just starting to talk about it... I think that (2) is somewhat likely, similar to what's going on with drone IDs. At some point someone is going to court... (1) could give the manufacturers a safe harbor, (2) could be a consumer protection reg. Might be nice to have something ready that's been vetted rather than thrown together at the last moment. But again - Bluetooth and IETF?? Later, Mike On 3/9/2026 12:26, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Maybe? It seems like we'd want some evidence that either (1) > manufacturers were interested in broadcasting such a signal or (2) > regulators were interested in requiring it. Is there some? > > > -Ekr > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:01 AM Michael StJohns > <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI Eric et al - > > Let's turn this about 90 degrees. I agree with John and Eric > about the policy issues, but instead of using Bluetooth to ask > permission, how about just having it broadcast "recording in > progress here"? That's something that the policy/law folk can > mandate and that a human in the loop (or even an automated system) > can take action on. And the law(s) can make carve outs for where > confidential recording is permitted. > > All that said - Bluetooth is usually not in our wheelhouse unless > also tied to IP. > > Mike > > > On 3/9/2026 09:05, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 4:02 AM Joe Chiarella >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> To whom it may concern: (Russ Housley pointed me to this email) >> >> I’m thinking about the growing problem of “smart glasses” and >> their stealth recording. What if there was a standard >> Bluetooth protocol whereby glasses would be required to >> “handshake” with all other Bluetooth devices in range >> (smartphones, laptops, lapel pins, other glasses, etc.) and >> ask for permission to record (something like robots.txt for >> web pages). If ANY devices in range say “no” then recording >> is blocked. Does that make sense? >> >> >> As John Mattsson's response suggests, the question of >> nonconsensual recording >> seems like a policy question about who decides whether recording >> is permissible >> that is not readily solved by technical means. The issue is that >> there are some >> settings where we want people to be able to deny consent (inside >> your house?) >> but others where we do not (law enforcement officers preventing >> protesters >> from recording). These are not really technically distinguishable. >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Just an idea. And probably one that someone else has already >> had. But I toss it out just in case. >> >> ps – I’d love if this also worked for Amazon Alexa type >> “smart” devices to indicate whether or not they should be >> “listening”. >> >> Make it a great day! >> >> *Joe Chiarella* >> >> www.JoeChiarella.com <https://www.joechiarella.com/>__ >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> +1 (717) 439-7743 >> >> *LinkedinProfileButton* >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/josephchiarella> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *Chiarella’s 8-C Philosophy*: >> /“Strive to *C*ontribute, *C*reate and *C*ollaborate. >> *C*ultivate a healthy *C*uriosity and a *C*onstructive mindset. >> Grow *C*ourageously. Most of all, *C*are for others.”/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> saag mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> saag mailing list [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > saag mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]