Hypothetically speaking I could envision activists printing out posters and stickers saying things to the effect of, "Smart glasses may be undressing and tracking your children." though I have no idea if such stickers and posters would get taken down or if that may lead to injuries. There could be t-shirt with a catchy logo that says something similar.
There have been spy-tech gadgets around for ages that can hide cameras in plain sight such as mini cameras that can be fitted inside a hat that looks like a decal. Mini cameras that look like a broach or shirt button. I think the difference is such gadgets have never been mainstream or popularized by a big tech platforms nor designed to integrate with cell phone internet connections into said big platform that is so tightly integrated with the government.
and that you'd be considered a creep and probably questioned by the police if found with one of those, while we're on a path to be forced to accept people with smart glasses
and that you'd be considered a creep and probably questioned by the police if found with one of those, while we're on a path to be forced to accept people with smart glasses
Possibly so. I get some looks with this one being in a conservative rural area. [1] Thankfully not everyone gets it.
Reminds me that the smartphone cameras were supposed to always make a 'click' sound while taking a photo. Nowadays Snapchat users take silently photos all the time, not only from themselves but from other "funny" people too.
In contrast, glasses are always directed to the others and therefore hard to distinguish between normal looking and recording.
People are drilling out the LEDs on glasses so people don't know theyre recording. This stuff is sickening and the users dont even realize or care what creeps they are.
...is as ass-backward as framing camera phones as 'pervert phones' would've been back in 2003, when all these 'concerns'
>Using technology to secretly record someone else isn't new, but bringing this audio- and video-collecting wearable tech into the mainstream has the potential to make it easier to carry out cybercrime and fraud by lowering the bar to entry for abuse.
could be equally applied.
anyway, once Apple releases their iWhatever this current thing will be swiftly forgotten.
A huge number of disputes in the world are "he said-she said", in that there are no hard records and in those cases, might often makes right (the richest opponent will have the most ability to game the system).
I think there should be a legal distinction between a system that records only for locally-based analysis (or things as simple as personal GPS tracking for maps purposes), and throws the data away, and a system that is recording audio and video to storage. I think a 30-second rolling buffer should be allowed so that a user can press a button to document exactly what's happening without missing so much of the initial conflict reason (although that time value is arguable, maybe even a minute is fine as long as it's a rolling RAM-only buffer, and with proper legal protections to where police shouldn't be able to get that RAM data without the owner of the glasses having initiated recording, which would write the buffer to storage then continue recording from there).
If the user presses the "save the buffer and start saving video+audio from here" then I think automatically the law should require there be a visible indicator of recording. 1980s camcorders had a "recording" LED on the front (you could cover it, but that's not the manufacturer's fault).
If the copyright industry wants to draw a distinction between "streaming" and "downloading" (when both are very much technically the same action, just with software on the receiving end that refuses to do a single action that would differentiate the two) then there should also be a difference between "buffering video for processing and possible future recording" and "actively recording video to storage in real time".
I think these type of devices do have legitimate value outside of the problematic ones. I just wish there was a way to construct a legal framework where such devices could be legally used in a self-defensive way but could also be an aggravating factor for things that are already considered crimes)
There have been a lot of instances in health care settings, where I've wanted to record audio, for many personal reasons. If I had an audio record of visits with physicians, I could review them privately, later, on my own time, and analyze what was actually said by all parties, because I often mis-hear, and misinterpret, and I also misspeak and am misunderstood, and so doctor visits are usually a shitshow of misunderstanding.
Sadly, every clinic I've been to got really hostile when I requested to record audio, even in private sessions. Also hostile against any sort of automatic transcriptions. One clinic immediately put up a sign on their front door that prohibited video and audio recordings, and it was because of the incident with me.
They say it is for HIPAA and they say it is to protect the other patients, but it is actually to protect their own asses and cover their own liabilities, because if patients begin recording physicians then we will have the ability to produce accurate records outside of their control, and outside of their medical charts, and beyond the long reach of editors and redactors who can remove anything that may cause them legal trouble at any time.
So yes, we consumers are at a real disadvantage when it comes to surveillance culture, because we're not allowed to surveil ourselves or surveil many types of private encounters we may have in the course of our lives. It's a lot of informational asymmetry and this is very concerning to me.
I don't mind who's recording or watching me, but I had hoped against hope that I'd be able to reciprocate.
There were a lot of concerns about the phones' cameras when they began to spread.
Had they been framed like this, and those concerns expressed more loudly, we'd probably have camera covers integrated in all phones now.
Instead we're left to pretend that it's implausible that our Chinese phone takes a peek every once in a while, or that we're infected by spyware which does it.
If you haven't grown with camera phones you've probably experienced discomfort at a camera constantly pointed at you, for a while.
It wasn't a dumb feeling, and it wouldn't be absurd to go back to a saner state of things at some point.
Hypothetically speaking I could envision activists printing out posters and stickers saying things to the effect of, "Smart glasses may be undressing and tracking your children." though I have no idea if such stickers and posters would get taken down or if that may lead to injuries. There could be t-shirt with a catchy logo that says something similar.
There have been spy-tech gadgets around for ages that can hide cameras in plain sight such as mini cameras that can be fitted inside a hat that looks like a decal. Mini cameras that look like a broach or shirt button. I think the difference is such gadgets have never been mainstream or popularized by a big tech platforms nor designed to integrate with cell phone internet connections into said big platform that is so tightly integrated with the government.
If everyone wears a smartglass it becomes easier for the creeps to hide. A tree in the forest.
Wearing smartglass in the first place is creepy.
I have nothing against people who want to wear a bodycam but it becomes creepy when you intentionally hide one in an innocuous-looking object.
and that you'd be considered a creep and probably questioned by the police if found with one of those, while we're on a path to be forced to accept people with smart glasses
and that you'd be considered a creep and probably questioned by the police if found with one of those, while we're on a path to be forced to accept people with smart glasses
Possibly so. I get some looks with this one being in a conservative rural area. [1] Thankfully not everyone gets it.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Stink-Dirty-Donuts-Humor-T-Shirt/dp/B...
Reminds me that the smartphone cameras were supposed to always make a 'click' sound while taking a photo. Nowadays Snapchat users take silently photos all the time, not only from themselves but from other "funny" people too.
In contrast, glasses are always directed to the others and therefore hard to distinguish between normal looking and recording.
If smart glasses are pervert glasses, what are 'smart' cars then?
Rape vans, considering gas prices
they are a lot like a pervy roomba
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-i...
People are drilling out the LEDs on glasses so people don't know theyre recording. This stuff is sickening and the users dont even realize or care what creeps they are.
They’re also completely illegal in Europe under GDPR regulations.
Related:
Meta's glasses will turn off the camera if you tamper with the privacy light
https://about.fb.com/news/2026/07/metas-ai-glasses-your-ques...
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48834292)
...is as ass-backward as framing camera phones as 'pervert phones' would've been back in 2003, when all these 'concerns'
>Using technology to secretly record someone else isn't new, but bringing this audio- and video-collecting wearable tech into the mainstream has the potential to make it easier to carry out cybercrime and fraud by lowering the bar to entry for abuse.
could be equally applied.
anyway, once Apple releases their iWhatever this current thing will be swiftly forgotten.
I think that there should be a middle ground.
A huge number of disputes in the world are "he said-she said", in that there are no hard records and in those cases, might often makes right (the richest opponent will have the most ability to game the system).
I think there should be a legal distinction between a system that records only for locally-based analysis (or things as simple as personal GPS tracking for maps purposes), and throws the data away, and a system that is recording audio and video to storage. I think a 30-second rolling buffer should be allowed so that a user can press a button to document exactly what's happening without missing so much of the initial conflict reason (although that time value is arguable, maybe even a minute is fine as long as it's a rolling RAM-only buffer, and with proper legal protections to where police shouldn't be able to get that RAM data without the owner of the glasses having initiated recording, which would write the buffer to storage then continue recording from there).
If the user presses the "save the buffer and start saving video+audio from here" then I think automatically the law should require there be a visible indicator of recording. 1980s camcorders had a "recording" LED on the front (you could cover it, but that's not the manufacturer's fault).
If the copyright industry wants to draw a distinction between "streaming" and "downloading" (when both are very much technically the same action, just with software on the receiving end that refuses to do a single action that would differentiate the two) then there should also be a difference between "buffering video for processing and possible future recording" and "actively recording video to storage in real time".
I think these type of devices do have legitimate value outside of the problematic ones. I just wish there was a way to construct a legal framework where such devices could be legally used in a self-defensive way but could also be an aggravating factor for things that are already considered crimes)
There have been a lot of instances in health care settings, where I've wanted to record audio, for many personal reasons. If I had an audio record of visits with physicians, I could review them privately, later, on my own time, and analyze what was actually said by all parties, because I often mis-hear, and misinterpret, and I also misspeak and am misunderstood, and so doctor visits are usually a shitshow of misunderstanding.
Sadly, every clinic I've been to got really hostile when I requested to record audio, even in private sessions. Also hostile against any sort of automatic transcriptions. One clinic immediately put up a sign on their front door that prohibited video and audio recordings, and it was because of the incident with me.
They say it is for HIPAA and they say it is to protect the other patients, but it is actually to protect their own asses and cover their own liabilities, because if patients begin recording physicians then we will have the ability to produce accurate records outside of their control, and outside of their medical charts, and beyond the long reach of editors and redactors who can remove anything that may cause them legal trouble at any time.
So yes, we consumers are at a real disadvantage when it comes to surveillance culture, because we're not allowed to surveil ourselves or surveil many types of private encounters we may have in the course of our lives. It's a lot of informational asymmetry and this is very concerning to me.
I don't mind who's recording or watching me, but I had hoped against hope that I'd be able to reciprocate.
There were a lot of concerns about the phones' cameras when they began to spread.
Had they been framed like this, and those concerns expressed more loudly, we'd probably have camera covers integrated in all phones now.
Instead we're left to pretend that it's implausible that our Chinese phone takes a peek every once in a while, or that we're infected by spyware which does it.
If you haven't grown with camera phones you've probably experienced discomfort at a camera constantly pointed at you, for a while.
It wasn't a dumb feeling, and it wouldn't be absurd to go back to a saner state of things at some point.
[dead]