6 ms·

Incidentally, I just bought the Gen 1 of these before departing on a trip to Japan a week ago. I gotta say, I'm very happy with the purchase - being able to tak

Incidentally, I just bought the Gen 1 of these before departing on a trip to Japan a week ago. I gotta say, I'm very happy with the purchase - being able to take photos/videos for memory-capture type stuff (ie I don't care a lot about it being the best quality) without taking out my phone and pointing it at stuff has been great, and the speakers are surprisingly nice to use when I don't want to block out the sounds of my surroundings. To me the benefit is not being able to constantly or secretly record stuff, it's just a nicer way to use a camera to record memories on a trip that does not involve staring at a screen half the time.

ahmedfromtunis 3y ago
I'm curious about the quality of the footage — not the video itself, but in terms of stability and clear (re)watchability.
tjpnz 3y ago
Operating such a device in Japan puts you in a legal gray area, and depending on your behaviour could result in unwanted police attention. They will respond to reports of such devices being used near spaces frequented by women or children. Act responsibly.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  As it should be. I am not comfortable with the idea that creeps are just walking around taking photos of me or my family.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    Don't worry nobody wants photos of you and your family
    - CursedUrn 3y ago
      Facebook does. They make billions of dollars a year from that kind of data.
      - amrocha 3y ago
        Facebook aren't "creeps", which is what the original comment was about
        gumballindie 3y ago
        They are, actually. It's a company that makes money off of people's photos among other things. I get it that _you_ have no issue with it, but why would I, having never given consent to that company to store images of me, be monitored by them? They don't have a right to monetize people that don't give consent. That's creepy.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        Facebook are absolutely "creeps".
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    Well, don't go out into public then .. because others have every right to record what you are doing in public.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      Sorry - I am confused. Are you saying that we should accept creeps lurking around taking photos of people?
      - boffinAudio 3y ago
        You should accept the fact that, while out and about in public, you have no expectation of privacy. In your own home - sure. Such is the price of freedom.
        gumballindie 3y ago
        > Such is the price of freedom. I am confused again. How am I free if my own persona is up for grabs by a business?
        boffinAudio 3y ago
        You have the freedom to be outside and also record everything you perceive. You can't deny others that freedom and expect to attain it yourself, too. That you don't exercise that right is immaterial and has no bearing on whether I should be able to freely exercise that right as well.
        gumballindie 3y ago
        But you are not a corporation?
        boffinAudio 3y ago
        Corporations are composed of individual human beings who are also exercising their universal rights in the course of involvement in that corporate entity .. will you start making a special class of humans that has those rights and can exercise them, and a class that can't based on their membership in a social group? Then: Congratulations, you've become the very repressive thing you were resisting in the first place. Yes, this is the price of freedom: in public, where you can express yourself, and exercise your universally granted rights to free expression (and thus recording) or not - without the expectation of being impinged upon by your peers - so too can others express themselves, and exercise their same universal rights. Its a two way street and it belongs to the public.
  - Draiken 3y ago
    Are we forgetting that we live in cities with cameras literally everywhere? Where arguably the real creeps (cops and random security people) are actively watching you all the time. I get it, if a person takes out his phone to do this it feels more intrusive (if it is or not is up for debate), but let's not kid ourselves here: we're already being recorded at almost all times (at least in most cities).
    - barrysteve 3y ago
      Why would he be forgetting that? He's allowed to be aginst both glasses and city-wide survelliance. This knee-jerk attempt to annul judgment has been so heavily bred into online discussions, since roughly 2018. Our current state of recording is not a counter argument to the concept, it's a stating of the facts.
      - Draiken 3y ago
        I cannot tell you why, or if in this specific instance they are forgetting or not. My point is more of a general one. The hypocrisy of the masses is real. Most only really care about the instances they can perceive and accept all other ones as long as they aren't inconvenient. I'm not trying to annul any judgements, merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live under. At this point having a camera in your glasses is merely a more convenient way to take pictures. And it's not like there aren't already glasses with cameras, for example. If a creep wants to creep, they will do it whether we want it or not. I simply don't understand how this product changes anything in relation to what already happens. We are already surveilled and creeps already take pictures.
        M4v3R 3y ago
        This lowers the barrier to take unwanted photos/videos significantly. Yes, surveillance cameras are everywhere but your everyday person does not have access to their feed (and the publicly accessible ones are not that common and usually very far away). This is different from possibly being recorded by anyone you pass by in high resolution, for their own personal use. Also, today when a person takes a photo of you it's usually very apparent, hence most people hesitate just pointing a camera at you to shoot a picture. Tomorrow, when these become more and more popular, just a glance at someone will be enough and no one will hesitate. Finally, this argument is basically: "oh well, we live in a crappy world already, so making it even more crappy is not a problem".
- amrocha 3y ago
  There's nothing illegal about these as long as you're not doing anything illegal. It's not illegal to take pictures of people in places where there's no expectation of privacy.
  - graeme 3y ago
    Are you commenting based on knowledge of Japan? To my knowledge they have laws against secret cameras in public places. From a quick search it is complicated and varied by prefecture and type of place.
    - amrocha 3y ago
      I live in Japan and see Chinese livestreamers walking around all the time. Stores are allowed to refuse their business, but it's not illegal to record others in public. Whether this counts as a hidden camera isn't up to me, but since it has a glowing LED indicating when it's recording I wouldn't think it would be a problem.
OrangeMusic 3y ago
In the promo content, all videos and photos are in portrait mode. Is it really the case? Can you do landscape?

ahmedfromtunis 3y ago

I'm curious about the quality of the footage — not the video itself, but in terms of stability and clear (re)watchability.

tjpnz 3y ago

Operating such a device in Japan puts you in a legal gray area, and depending on your behaviour could result in unwanted police attention. They will respond to reports of such devices being used near spaces frequented by women or children. Act responsibly.

gumballindie 3y ago
As it should be. I am not comfortable with the idea that creeps are just walking around taking photos of me or my family.
- amrocha 3y ago
  Don't worry nobody wants photos of you and your family
  - CursedUrn 3y ago
    Facebook does. They make billions of dollars a year from that kind of data.
    - amrocha 3y ago
      Facebook aren't "creeps", which is what the original comment was about
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        They are, actually. It's a company that makes money off of people's photos among other things. I get it that _you_ have no issue with it, but why would I, having never given consent to that company to store images of me, be monitored by them? They don't have a right to monetize people that don't give consent. That's creepy.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Facebook are absolutely "creeps".
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  Well, don't go out into public then .. because others have every right to record what you are doing in public.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Sorry - I am confused. Are you saying that we should accept creeps lurking around taking photos of people?
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      You should accept the fact that, while out and about in public, you have no expectation of privacy. In your own home - sure. Such is the price of freedom.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        > Such is the price of freedom. I am confused again. How am I free if my own persona is up for grabs by a business?
        boffinAudio 3y ago
        You have the freedom to be outside and also record everything you perceive. You can't deny others that freedom and expect to attain it yourself, too. That you don't exercise that right is immaterial and has no bearing on whether I should be able to freely exercise that right as well.
        gumballindie 3y ago
        But you are not a corporation?
        boffinAudio 3y ago
        Corporations are composed of individual human beings who are also exercising their universal rights in the course of involvement in that corporate entity .. will you start making a special class of humans that has those rights and can exercise them, and a class that can't based on their membership in a social group? Then: Congratulations, you've become the very repressive thing you were resisting in the first place. Yes, this is the price of freedom: in public, where you can express yourself, and exercise your universally granted rights to free expression (and thus recording) or not - without the expectation of being impinged upon by your peers - so too can others express themselves, and exercise their same universal rights. Its a two way street and it belongs to the public.
- Draiken 3y ago
  Are we forgetting that we live in cities with cameras literally everywhere? Where arguably the real creeps (cops and random security people) are actively watching you all the time. I get it, if a person takes out his phone to do this it feels more intrusive (if it is or not is up for debate), but let's not kid ourselves here: we're already being recorded at almost all times (at least in most cities).
  - barrysteve 3y ago
    Why would he be forgetting that? He's allowed to be aginst both glasses and city-wide survelliance. This knee-jerk attempt to annul judgment has been so heavily bred into online discussions, since roughly 2018. Our current state of recording is not a counter argument to the concept, it's a stating of the facts.
    - Draiken 3y ago
      I cannot tell you why, or if in this specific instance they are forgetting or not. My point is more of a general one. The hypocrisy of the masses is real. Most only really care about the instances they can perceive and accept all other ones as long as they aren't inconvenient. I'm not trying to annul any judgements, merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live under. At this point having a camera in your glasses is merely a more convenient way to take pictures. And it's not like there aren't already glasses with cameras, for example. If a creep wants to creep, they will do it whether we want it or not. I simply don't understand how this product changes anything in relation to what already happens. We are already surveilled and creeps already take pictures.
      - M4v3R 3y ago
        This lowers the barrier to take unwanted photos/videos significantly. Yes, surveillance cameras are everywhere but your everyday person does not have access to their feed (and the publicly accessible ones are not that common and usually very far away). This is different from possibly being recorded by anyone you pass by in high resolution, for their own personal use. Also, today when a person takes a photo of you it's usually very apparent, hence most people hesitate just pointing a camera at you to shoot a picture. Tomorrow, when these become more and more popular, just a glance at someone will be enough and no one will hesitate. Finally, this argument is basically: "oh well, we live in a crappy world already, so making it even more crappy is not a problem".
amrocha 3y ago
There's nothing illegal about these as long as you're not doing anything illegal. It's not illegal to take pictures of people in places where there's no expectation of privacy.
- graeme 3y ago
  Are you commenting based on knowledge of Japan? To my knowledge they have laws against secret cameras in public places. From a quick search it is complicated and varied by prefecture and type of place.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    I live in Japan and see Chinese livestreamers walking around all the time. Stores are allowed to refuse their business, but it's not illegal to record others in public. Whether this counts as a hidden camera isn't up to me, but since it has a glowing LED indicating when it's recording I wouldn't think it would be a problem.

OrangeMusic 3y ago

In the promo content, all videos and photos are in portrait mode. Is it really the case? Can you do landscape?