• Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 hour ago

    It is really upsetting that we can’t get actually good “smart glasses”. Like, glasses that have a little screen projected on the lenses and can do searches and stuff for you on the fly, or display text like a script or something, or watch a video, or see your music playlist…

    Why does everyone trying to make “smart glasses” feel compelled to include a fucking hidden camera?? And now it’s even worse with the AI riddle surveillance state we are living in. I won’t even be a little surprised to find out that Meta’s pervert glasses are being co-opted by Flock to add even more cameras to their “safety” network…

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 minutes ago

      For me, the hypothetical appeal of Smart Glasses would be to identify the things in my environment and point them out. That requires a camera. I’m not remotely interested in having augmented reality glasses enough to give a corporation my data like that.

  • Soulinyx@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Having actually read the article, I think that doctor himself should be fired and his license to practice revoked. It’s just sounding like another case of the wrong people being entrusted with this kind of technology, so now it’s creating an issue. The trust with doctors is more or less corroded as is the trust in the health care system is, so I’m not surprised to learn that some doctor operating on a side-agenda we’ve yet to know about in his life is the reason here.

  • cinoreus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The confrontation, shared in a video that has circulated on Reddit, centres on a simple but uncomfortable question: should a doctor be wearing glasses with a built-in camera while examining a patient in an intimate clinical setting?

    I hate it when articles do this. Firstly, answer is NO. secondly there’s nothing uncomfortable about the question itself because answer is a NO, third there’s no need to frame a clear violation of privacy as a question. If it’s not acceptable to pull out a phone and start recording in that situation, then it’s clearly not acceptable to wear those glasses.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    She should have slapped those glasses off his face. Legally speaking it should be fine to punch anyone wearing pervert glasses in the face.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Not to defend the glasses because they’re obviously a problem, but that’s more an individual doctor issue than a problem with the product.

    • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      These glasses serve no function other than to deceive if the little light has been shut off.

      The only way meta gets away with making these is the little light being on.

      Ive seen countless videos of men trying to get it deactivated and so very few of it being refused, so yes they need to be banned or make it a severe crime to deactivate the little light.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        In Japan, you can’t disable the shutter sound on phone cameras, because weirdos were sticking them up women’s skirts and silently taking pictures.

        We didn’t do that here in America, because perversity is a human right in MAGA America.

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If you stick your phone up someone’s skirt in America, there’s a, not high, but still significant chance you’ll be shot.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Or, and hear me out, ban these glasses with the exception of some very specific use cases, like for blind people where I see a legit use case.

  • 87Six@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.

    • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Do you know what slander is?

      Do you know what habeous corpus is?

      Would you like to be arrested and not given the same rights and protections?

      Maybe you should get arrested by ICE and see what its like.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Or actual journalism.
      If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.

  • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.

  • belochka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 hours ago

    There are two parts to this:

    1. Ethics, a doctor would be expected to know better,
    2. Reality, where eventually such things will just stop being 100% percent visible, and thus will happen again and again with impunity.

    So, first, doctors shouldn’t do that, second, ban or not, this will be happening all around us, no exit.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Eventually people will just have to get used to the idea of not caring about/sexualizing nudity.

      • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Walk outside completely naked right now then if its not such a big deal. Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is.

        • 0x0@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          57 minutes ago

          In some countries you can.
          Thank you for missing the point.
          Bye

      • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        So you just throw privacy out the window with the baby?

        Are you american?

        Do you know what the fourth amendment is, of course not?

        • 0x0@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Oh hi there keyboard warrior.
          No, none of those, but i wouldn’t expect you to understand reality.
          Have a nice day, bye.

  • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    The tool that tried this is a monster, but I do feel sort of bad for the stock image photo models that get associated with the acts of these monsters. Like the dude in the photo could be totally chill, but is presented as though he is the pervert in the story.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Does he, though? The modeling session would have been before they were released and they don’t exactly tell their models the full technical details of the stuff they make them wear.

  • boaratio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    My PCP wears Bluetooth headphones so that his notes are transcribed by his nurse. He always asks me if this is ok, and the device he wears is obviously visible. I can’t imagine a world where your doctor would secretly spy on you. Fuck this noise.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Every doctor I’ve been to for the past couple years records your appointment to transcribe it with AI. Good luck to people who have a problem with this.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s 2026. His nurse is probably ChatGPT. I’ve straight up been asked if I was okay with my appt being transcribed by AI. Icky…

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That’s like the least offensive use of AI as well. I’m perfectly fine with voice transcription that’s hardly even an AI

        • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          No, because it’s wrong just enough to slip errors into your medical report that seem plausible, but can be dangerously wrong.

          You can and should say no to AI writing anything into your medical report.

          People get lazy and don’t review things as carefully when they see it’s usually correct, and you don’t always get the opportunity to read all the notes of your medical report yourself.

          • moonshine69@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Doctors aren’t writing their notes either way, it’s sent to the Philippines or it’s sent to ai. Why would they bother writing themselves when they can see another patient in that time and double their income.

            Dunno where that leaves is though, rage at the for profit health industry I guess :/

            And either way the practice management software they use is mining those notes to advertise https://www.magentus.com/health-informatics/data-management-services/?r=a - highly regulated but there’s always cowboys

            • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Doctors aren’t writing their notes either way

              This is far from a universal truth. While it’s true that local professional medical transcriptionists are much rarer today than they were 20 years ago as a lot of doctors started using software (I remember when “Dragon: Naturally Speaking” really hit the stage everyone thought it would be revolutionary), in my experience there are a lot less doctors even using transcription these days. Some of the old timers still do since they never really bothered to learn to type, but a lot of them just type into a computer in the exam room with patients.

              Maybe that’s a regional thing, I don’t know, but it is definitely the norm in my part of the world.

            • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 hours ago

              At least a human can learn and understand when there’s logical inconsistencies.

              I’d much rather a call center in the Philippines does it than a computer that has no idea what the context is.

              An in person scribe is actually best, cause there’s a second set of eyes on the information, and they can ask clarifying questions at the time of the appointment. That’s how my doc does it.

              • moonshine69@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 hours ago

                Hey now, don’t shoot the messenger, I was just grounding the conversation in the reality of how I’ve seen doctors typically work (in Australia).

                But …your doc has an In person scribe? That sounds pretty great! It is another arrow in the side of the for profit medical industry that not everyone has access to this level of service.

                Don’t think they’re call centers, docs just record in a little recorder and send it to transcription services, it’s not live or anything. They don’t get more context than the recording itself…

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That is one of the legitimate uses. Unfortunately it’s marred by the AI companies’ complete lack of trustworthiness when it comes to data privacy and security. You can’t know for certain they aren’t just wrapping your personal medical notes into their ever growing store of training data.

        • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s also not hipaa compliant. Any doctors doing this are in for a bad time sooner or later.

          • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The problem is that these doctors might not even know that the AI’s are spying on them. We don’t have enough legislative protection for our private data so they could sign up for these things and be under the impression that their data is secure meanwhile these AI companies are siphoning that data into their training models without telling them. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.

  • LilBobbyTables@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    They absolutely should not be banned, they should be treated legally like any other camera/video recording device - not allowed in places like change room, bathrooms, hospitals, etc.

    The actual usefulness and potential of smart glasses, especially ones with cameras, is almost unfathomable. The cameras are arguably the most important part, as that’s what will enable AR stuff, AI object recognition, and all of the other almost endless ways that will be thought of in the future.

    I think laws are going to have to mandate physical shutters over the cameras, that make it super noticeable when they’re open - even if not recording.

    • skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      The actual usefulness and potential of smart glasses, especially ones with cameras, is almost unfathomable.

      I thought the first paragraph was leading to a decent point, but “unfathomable usefulness” is an almost rabid level of overstatement. There’s some fathomable applications as an aid for blind people, but every other use case that’s ever come up has ranged from “novelty” to “really fucking creepy” with the occasional “looks like a useful thing but didn’t really solve an actual problem we had with the previous way of doing it”.

      • LilBobbyTables@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I don’t think it is an overstatement. It could mean full AR the world over. In every shop you could look at something and have a pop up with its price, allergy information, materials, place of manufacturing.

        At every sporting event you could have your own personal replays and multiple camera angles.

        While cooking you could have instructions showing you exactly where to cut, how long to pour, when and how to stir, timers for multiple bits of your cooking, see the temperature of something by looking at it.

        While repairing a car engine you could have every part being labelled for you, with detailed instructions on every single step of everything from changing the oil to rebuilding an engine.

        While driving you could see the speed of other cars, be alerted to potential hazards, see directions from your point of view.

        The limit really is the sky for AR, which is what the end goal is for smart glasses. That’s the unfathomable usefulness of the technology.

        • skisnow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I read your list and stand by my statement. Half the things on that list are novelties that you’d get quickly bored of, and the other half have solutions that don’t require pervert glasses. I see zero problems being solved anywhere in the list you just made.

      • AvocadoSandwich@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Honestly I see only one use for smart glasses with a camera and AI and that is to help blind people know what is in front of them.

        • LilBobbyTables@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 hours ago

          You can’t see any other reason why having a heads-up-display on your vision, with AI being able to recognise every single thing in its vision? None at all?

          Even the biggest haters of the technology can surely not be that blinded. Here’s an example for you - real time text and audio language translation, from any language to any language.

          You now can see another reason :)

  • subgenius@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 hours ago

    They shouldn’t be allowed in a work place setting withought prior acknowledgement and consent.

    • bugbear@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’ll do you one better, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere without prior acknowledgement and consent

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      A local bar has banned them already with a sign that basically says “this ban is as much to prevent you from getting punched as anything else”.

      In theory they shouldn’t be a problem because I think there’s a little LED that lights up when the camera is on, but in practice people don’t know that so assume the worst.

      • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Search turning off the light meta glasses and find why people should be arrested for these glasses.

        Ive only seen a few videos where the tech refused to turn off the light.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        a little LED that lights up when the camera is on,

        Which can be easily covered and no, i don’t believe FB’s claim that this disables the camera.