3 ms·
Am I the only one who wants to see these things banned in most public places?
by 31337Logic 2y ago
Am I the only one who wants to see these things banned in most public places?
- phyrex 2y agoI assume you're consistent and therefore also want to ban any other photo or video device in most public places?
- darkwater 2y agoAre you recording non-stop all the time? If so, yes, you should not be able to do it.
- Timpy 2y agoRight now people have to point their phone cameras at at the thing they're photographing or recording, it's a very clear visual signal to others and there are cultural norms for this behavior. If a person is doing this in a common tourist destination that's more acceptable than pointing your camera at somebody else's children without asking them first. Imagine how uncomfortable it would be for somebody to hold their phone at eye level and point it at you the entire time they're having a conversation with you, even if they say they're not recording or anything like that. Having a distaste for smart glasses is pretty consistent with the status quo.
- shkkmo 2y ago> Right now people have to point their phone cameras at at the thing they're photographing I mean, that really isn't true. There have been wearable and carryable hidden cameras for ages and we also have 360 cameras that no longer need to be pointed at what they are capturing. This isn't changing anything about what is available to purchase, and if anything, these are relatively more obvious. The actual change would be, that if these become widely adopted, those types of cameras would be everywhere.
- Timpy 2y agoYou're right, it's possible and common to be recorded without somebody pointing a phone camera at you. That doesn't negate my point, right now the norm is that in many situations you _can_ record to your personal device without informed consent but you shouldn't. That will change if these types of cameras are everywhere.
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y agoespecially if it's being made by Facebook
- unsui 2y agoThis is key. If this were pushed by Apple, people would be responding much differently, since there is an inherent level of trust in regards to Apple's privacy protections, vs Meta. So, not so much the technology, but rather the trust (or lack thereof) behind the implementor.
- michaelt 2y agoThere's certainly a weird aspect to it. Historically, body-worn hidden cameras have been for perverts, spies and journalists. Normal folks don't mind people knowing they're taking a photo, and want to be able to frame the photo and suchlike. Gopros would be clearly visible, front and centre on people's helmets - and only while doing sports. Guards and cops with body cameras want people to know they've got a camera, as a deterrent. You'd occasionally see hidden camera footage used by investigative journalists - but outside of that, the market for body-worn hidden cameras was mostly weird lonely pervs who wanted to take photos at the topless beach and upskirt photos without getting into trouble. A glasses-camera product won't succeed among us normal folk if wearing it makes you look like a weird lonely perv.
- ctoth 2y ago> A glasses-camera product won't succeed among us normal folk if wearing it makes you look like a weird lonely perv. You say this, and yet as a blind user of the Meta glasses (they're actually great for accessibility!) I am not ... seeing it. They are far more ubiquitous and warn by far more people than you would expect, especially when comparing to Google Glass.
- varelse 2y ago[dead]
- ge96 2y agoGotta wear clothes with embedded data to poison the recording (not an original thought by me saw it in GITS SAC 2045)