41–50 of 463 posts
Not a fan of regulation in general, but would love to see a ban of cameras on glasses used in public spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this an honest argument? Surely you can think of how glasses might be ... in a different league than the two items you mention?
Not meaningfully. Anyone holding a smartphone might be recording you. You’d better avoid them if you don’t want to be recorded.
Just because you don’t notice it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
However, this is still a different thing than smart glasses which can further be segmented into who designed the smart glasses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What are the reasonable and legitimate uses of smart glasses with cameras in that can record without the subject being aware?
Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know.
There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras pointed at the street that record people every time they go out in public in any urban setting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a name for these people, glassholes
[flagged]
body cams are local and mostly used by law enforcement to guarantee they are not abusing their power.
glassholes are connected to the cloud. you may have the right to record on public space, i have the right to remain anonymous in the crowd and not be constatly targeted by an advertisement company.
Even if 1% of the corner cases are legit uses (blind people having the glasses describe the world around them is fantastic.) 99% of the people using them are assholes that deserve to be put in the ground and the glasses smashed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the reasonable and legitimate uses of smart glasses with cameras in that can record without the subject being aware?
I already noted it in the answer. If a person feels at risk, or even if they're on vacation, they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public, just as they could with a phone. Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know. There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras pointed at the st…
Ease off the gas
> Meta said this was for the purpose of improving the customer experience, and was a common practice among other companies.
Am I reading this correctly?! This is probably the weirdest statement I've read on the internet in twenty years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a name for these people, glassholes
[flagged]
I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.
Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case -- eg: someone who is using them to assist with a disability, or for research, or something.
Even most dash cams don't stream to Meta -- they just record the last _n_ hours and you need to know to save off the video if you're in an crash / incident. In other words, most of the time no privacy is violated, and the only potential privacy violation occurs during an incident.
Even policy body cams, which I wholeheartedly support, have some pretty strong downsides: currently, if you're at the end of your rope, having the worst day of your life, and in your dishevelment turn a speeding ticket into a BATLEO, you're famous forever for being a lunatic. Maybe the rest of the time you're a good person, and you can learn from this and move on. Except now you have a permanent albatross around your neck. This is a secondary penalty that the justice system did not intend, and has no answer for.