Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure the opposition is based on the company behind them. Camera phones are probably accepted because you only pull it out when you can feel for the consent wherever it seems you're about to point the thing. With camera glasses, you're always pointing it right at the face of everyone you talk to. I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd…
I feel like it can be both. > I imagine if someone entered an establishment with their camera phone out recording everything all the time, they'd likely be told to put it away or get kicked out, too. I agree somewhat, but I think it depends on the location as to how quickly people would react, and this kind of thing is almost expected in outdoor spaces, so the parameters seem different. Also, doing this with a camera…
The point is that, if they wanted to, someone could enter a venue wearing a brooch, a pendant, or some other item attached to their body that records video. If the object – whatever it may be – is not easily identifiable as a video-recording device, then the privacy violation is real regardless of the device.
The problem is that here we’re focusing on the device’s form factor rather than its purpose. It’s a bit like criticizing knives because they can kill, even though they’re used for cooking. The problem isn’t banning filming; it’s that such acts must be punishable by law. Similarly, facial recognition should be prohibited not only when used with glasses but for any type of recording, because it violates everyone’s privacy to help catch a few criminals. It’s disproportionately unfair and undermines the freedom of all of us.