4 ms·

Sigh! Where to start? OK, let me give it a shot. Luddites complained about the automated loom as well Now that's a really bad case of whataboutism. I'm not co

Sigh! Where to start? OK, let me give it a shot. Luddites complained about the automated loom as well Now that's a really bad case of whataboutism. I'm not complaining about technological advance. I'm complaining about tech, which is a massive invasion of privacy. Have you ever been lying on a beach and some asshole lets his drone flying around? I don't know about you, but I really don't fancy to be half naked on some cretin's social media feed without my consent (which, needless to say I didn't give and would never ever provide). Those bars and strip clubs already have plenty of CCTVs, you are being recorded. I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that if such an establishment uploads the feed to the internet they'll go out of business mighty fast. In addition I don't have cops hanging around semi private places constantly recording what's going on in such places. Those establishments may have a justified use, namely security, for such tech. You don't. almost every phone has a camera capable of taking video That was one of the more stupid arguments used by glassholes. When you whip out your phone and start recording that's obvious as hell. Not so, when you do it by a wearable. people are worried about the potential for privacy abuse, but in the end these fears don’t come to pass Actually they are very much. There were umpteen stories about glassholes using their gizmos even in places that explicitly banned their use. They then had the nerve to complain publicly about "ludites" that deemed this unacceptable. Here's a search for you: "privacy abuse google glass" It yields 53’900’000 results. If just one procent of one procent involve actual stories of real privacy violations that's a massive invasion of societal privacy for ones own gratification. And that's exactly what's completely unacceptable. You're free to believe in your techno utopia and that it only leads to progess and betterment of humanity. I think you're wrong and believe my arguments to be sound as proven by the last 20 years and the rise of those tech behemoths and their constantly shitty behavior. Calling me a ludite and using tech, which truly benefited humanity to make your argument makes you, in my opinion, intellectually dishonest. And that's where I'll close my argument, since it's pretty obvious that we'll never agree.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
We have had CCTVs around for the last 30 years, where are the massive privacy violations that you guys predicted 30 years ago? Very very few people had google glass to begin with, the glass hole term was invented and perpetuated by a bunch of conspiracy theorists, enough to get 3.9 million hits on google (for < 1000 units?), it provides no evidence of anything. Tech Luddism is as old as technology itself. It isn’t surprising that you don’t want this, that you don’t want other people to have this, we’ve gone down this road before and we will go down it again.
- fghtr 7y ago
  Tech Luddism has nothing to do with these arguments. I do not want tech that someone else controls, because it benefits 'them', not me. I want tech that I can control. See, e.g., Free Software Foundation and Purism.
- z9e 7y ago
  CCTV footage wasn’t uploaded for everyone to see and comment on. It is usually closed to owners of them, and authorities who have reason to use it for investigation of a crime. Using the “conspiracy theorist” argument is a typical way of trying to put a negative label on a group of people you disagree with these days. 3.9 million results doesn’t sound like a group of 10 mentally unsound people spewing a BS conspiracy. It provides evidence that a large portion of people don’t agree with the tech.
the_gipsy 7y ago
> When you whip out your phone and start recording that's obvious as hell. Not so, when you do it by a wearable. Not necessarily obvious. You most likely can't tell if someone is just holding his phone in his hands, or is recording you. There are apps that don't show a preview or any other clues on screen, so you won't know even if you get to see their screen.

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

We have had CCTVs around for the last 30 years, where are the massive privacy violations that you guys predicted 30 years ago? Very very few people had google glass to begin with, the glass hole term was invented and perpetuated by a bunch of conspiracy theorists, enough to get 3.9 million hits on google (for < 1000 units?), it provides no evidence of anything. Tech Luddism is as old as technology itself. It isn’t surprising that you don’t want this, that you don’t want other people to have this, we’ve gone down this road before and we will go down it again.

fghtr 7y ago
Tech Luddism has nothing to do with these arguments. I do not want tech that someone else controls, because it benefits 'them', not me. I want tech that I can control. See, e.g., Free Software Foundation and Purism.
z9e 7y ago
CCTV footage wasn’t uploaded for everyone to see and comment on. It is usually closed to owners of them, and authorities who have reason to use it for investigation of a crime. Using the “conspiracy theorist” argument is a typical way of trying to put a negative label on a group of people you disagree with these days. 3.9 million results doesn’t sound like a group of 10 mentally unsound people spewing a BS conspiracy. It provides evidence that a large portion of people don’t agree with the tech.

the_gipsy 7y ago

> When you whip out your phone and start recording that's obvious as hell. Not so, when you do it by a wearable. Not necessarily obvious. You most likely can't tell if someone is just holding his phone in his hands, or is recording you. There are apps that don't show a preview or any other clues on screen, so you won't know even if you get to see their screen.