There is no question that this violates doctor patient confidentiality and damages trust. Fuck no. Even if they fucking have to not take off their clothes NO.
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
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.
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…
Why? None of that would improve my life in any way.
Well since you’re the only person that matters, let’s do things your way.
Thank you
People travel, which can make access to good screens difficult (think flights, busses).
Such glasses are not cheap, but provide virtually unlimited screen space wherever you are.Jesus christ, take a fucking break from your God damn screen.
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.
Or you could just buy a guide book that someone painstakingly put together to help you understand your environment.
Those do exist. They’re just expensive. Look up the Even Realities G2 smart glasses. They have a monochrome heads up display, conversation analysis, live translate, notifications from your phone, time, date ect. Oh, and there is no camera on them by design (the developers understand and acknowledge that a camera is a huge privacy risk). They also have an open SDK and developer tools so that you can make your own apps for them. They’re kind of like real life E.D.I.T.H. glasses.
Do you know if the microphone can be disabled? Or the features that use it? Basically I’d want glasses like these that primarily react to inputs I make on my phone or show things the phone can figure out based on my location etc. I’d want to be 100% certain no audio is being recorded or even uploaded to a translation service.
So you want a screen in front of your eyes, that you need to pull out your other screen to control?
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.
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”.
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.
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 :)
No I can’t because for spoken language I don’t need a camera, just a mic and I also wouldn’t want to be constantly bombarded with a translation of every foreign language. If I want to translate something I can’t read I can get my phone to either type it or use the camera function on that thing. These glasses will not replace my phone and that already has a camera with better privacy option than these glasses will ever have. So no. I do not see a need for a camera that videos everything I see all the time except for some very niece scenarios. If you think you need something like this, then great, but don’t expect people taking it kindly that you are filming their every move.
You said you saw no uses, not that there is no need.
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.
price, allergy information, materials, place of manufacturing
All of this is already written on whatever product you are buying. These problems the glasses fix are imaginary.
Why do people pretend like every product has to “solve a problem”? That’s complete rubbish.
Imagine walking down an aisle and simply looking at a product, not having to even pick it up, and it tells you that it contains something you’re allergic to or dislike. That’s the kind of thing that is possible at the absolutely lowest level of imagination required.
You aspire to be like the humans from Wall-E, lol.
I want life to be easier. I want convenience.
👍
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.
Things don’t need to solve problems to be amazing and revolutionary.
-
Doesn’t solve a problem
-
Recording everything around you is fucking creepy
I mean at some stage you have to start wondering about the sort of person with a less-than-one-week-old account that’s up in here defending them so vociferously. I notice you’re also in other AI threads on Lemmy being equally shilly.
Nice gate keeping attempt.
The only community I am subscribed to at the moment is this one. Maybe that’s why? Like you said, I’m just new.
I’m a tech enthusiast. I love the bleeding edge of tech. I don’t look at a new tech product through the cynical lens that you clearly do. I look at it with an open mind about what it could do and what it could become. Like I said in another comment, people had these same “creep” comments and opinions about cameras on phones, but that thankfully didn’t slow down their adoption and innovation.
Do you just accuse everyone you disagree with of being a “shill”? You have to wonder about what type of person jumps straight to that.
I’ve invented a machine that turns my shit into tooth paste. It’s the bleeding edge of technology. I’m sure you’ll be excited to try it!
-
I see why places moving towards a full on ban of the Pervert Glasses.
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.
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.
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.
I can honestly put up with a lot, especially in a doctor’s office. Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass. I would walk out if my doctor came in with those glasses. I will go and find a new doctor. There is no way I am okay with a personal camera in that exam room.
I totally get what you’re saying.
However, it is kind of funny (interesting?) that people will trust that there isn’t a hidden camera in the exam room without question, but mistrust someone who has a camera openly displayed, but off, in the exam room. As if the reminder that cameras exist is what negates that trust, not the risk of being recorded.
This is more of a philosophical musing than a defense of wearing a camera into an exam room.
but off,
there’s an entire creepy industry to disable the lights.
https://stealthspecs.com/product/send-in-modification-service-disable-led-on-meta-glasses/
https://www.reddit.com/r/RayBanStories/comments/s9bb2i/blocking_led_light_when_recording/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCU4RtorMY
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/meta-ai-glasses-record-without-warning-light/
Yeh I know, so clearly that way of doing it isn’t sufficient.
?
not sure what you’re saying; there’s multiple different bypasses. as long as creeps can record what they see without someone’s consent to be recorded, they’ll be creep glasses.
So much the same as phones? Are phones “creep phones”?
There are multiple ways to prevent this, they just haven’t implemented any of them yet because the pushback hasn’t been loud enough, nor has anything been legislated.
PHONES DON’T RECORD WHERE YOU LOOK.
Phones are visible! they don’t look like spectacles. Why do I have to explain this?
I suspect you’re just being duplicitous, certainly you’ve never tried to put your phone on your face or answer the glasses when you hear a ringtone.
Stop acting stupid.
Now you’re trying to make a distinction between recording and recording exactly from your PoV? Why? Why does that make any difference?
Glasses are visible, and what I’ve been saying is that there just needs to be legislation and standards around making it obvious when smart glasses are recording.
I will go and find a new doctor.
right after I punch Dr. M. Olester in the face.
Seriously. How many patients did this guy record before someone noticed? He needs to be killed. Sloppers can’t communicate anymore-they just ask grok what that meant and Claude how to win the argument. Language now skips the human and is entirely mediated by corporate machines. the only thing left is violence.
It’s not even a personal camera. The footage is uploaded to Facebook where they have humans categorize and tag it.
[bums], [boobs], [other]
[Hot dog] [Not hot dog]
I can totally understand the reason to capture video and conversation during a medical consultation. As someone who has to see a dermatologist from time to time, I’ve had pictures taken.
The proper protocol is to get consent first, before donning the glasses or pulling out the camera.
And I bet that the perv glasses are not the best option for capturing data for medical analysis.
Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers.
Insane to even think this is remotely okay.
Smart glasses are COOL! Why are you so BUTTHURT about Docturs and Social Media giants with DISTURBING and NONEXISTANT Privacy Practices seeing your PRIVATE NAKED VIDEOS? Stupid LIBTARDS!
-People in this Thread!
so fucking sick and tired of the pervert glasses boosters.
these things belong on people with visual difficulty, the visual description service should be free to them, and the devices restricted otherwise. it’s fucking gross that so many people think ‘you have no reasonable expectation to privacy in the public’ == creep cameras are cool.
fyi, there are laws in most states against voyeurism - in my state that creep behavior is a felony.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
so fucking sick of the creepglass fanboys
Strong disagree. Smart glasses will be one of the biggest tech advances in the next decade or 2 for the normal person, and I’m here for it. The awesome things that they will unlock the ability to do are almost unlimited.
There are a million cheap, easy to get and conceal cameras that perverts have access to. There are already laws around where and when and what you can record. Smart glasses don’t make anything any easier for perverts.
All that’s needed is a standard to be developed on how to physically cover the camera by default, and make it extremely obvious when the camera is not covered, even if it’s not recording. Shouldn’t be hard technically.
You don’t care that people will find you creepy?
Like, I get it if you think you’d never do awful things, sure, but being perceived as someone in that same crowd?
Huh
Also, equating these to a phone camera, a pen camera or other device is specious as shit. ‘spy cams’ often have terrible resolution; these things do not. LOL get a minox it’s the same. derp.
also, none of your concealable cameras are RUNNING FUCKIN FACIAL RECOGNITION OR OTHER AI GARBAGE they’re certain to make for these shitspecs.
re: a standard - if it wasn’t hard technically to do so, why do you think they neglected to do it?
because the creeps who will buy these don’t want that shit.
I wouldn’t be wearing them anywhere that would be considered “creepy” to wear them, and as a middle aged heavily tattooed metal fan I’m long past caring what other people think haha.
I’m not planning on buying any yet either - the tech that I’m waiting for isn’t there yet. I want all the AR stuff, maps, live translations, the ability to look at something and get info about it, do price comparisons, get instructions, etc. basically the next iteration of Microsoft’s HoloLens or Apples Vision Pro, but in normal glasses. By then the large majority of the population will have gotten over this “only perverts wear them” thing, which is quite frankly silly anyway.
The resolution of creep cams is irrelevant really (I’m sure there are many 1080p and 4K ones though), since the fact that it’s being recorded at all is the issue. Walking around with smart glasses on at least makes it obvious that you could be going to record.
As for the standard - it won’t be up to the manufacturers eventually. It’ll be regulated. I’m all for that. The EU commission will do something about it soon, though at the same time they’ll probably mandate all footage and data gets sent to law enforcement and governments since they seem to tick-tock between good and horrible actions haha
large majority of the population will have gotten over this “only perverts wear them” thing, which is quite frankly silly anyway.
sure thing buddy.
imho the people who find these creepy af is only going to grow as awareness of them grows.
but you do you.
People felt the same way about phone cameras at one stage. You might not be old enough to remember, or might not have even been born.
Phones in Japan had to be made so you couldn’t disable the shutter sound when taking a photo.
One thing I’ve really learned over the years is that a huge percentage of the population has virtually no ability to think ahead even a few years in terms of tech, let alone long term. I guarantee you that smart glasses are going to be as ubiquitous as smart phones and smart watches in a decade or 2. They are the natural evolution of the smartphone, or as an everyday wearable.
dude, I’ve been using phones since they had dials. one place I lived, we had a party line shared with 3 neighbors.
it’s not the same thing at all. Stop acting like phones and EYEWEAR are the same. People have no reasonable expectation if you’re holding a phone to their face that they aren’t being recorded. Looking at your silly stupid mug while serving your food or walking by isn’t consenting to be recorded.
One thing I’ve really learned over the years is that a huge percentage of the population has virtually no ability to think ahead even a few years in terms of tech,
this is rich, considering how out of touch you are on this subject.
That’s the same logic like “there’s no point in gun control, people can use knives”. People don’t like to be recorded without their knowledge and consent, whether you use smart glasses or other cameras.
Yes, people use these smart glasses for stuff that’s not creepy and invading people’s privacy - I’ve seen people use them for recipe videos and such. Cool. You can also achieve the same with other cameras. That’s really not an argument to normalise them in public or private settings involving other people who haven’t consented to it.
Every damned thread about them hurr huu but what about smartfonez as if some turd whipping out their smartphone to film someone wasn’t such an acknowleged shit move it’s a tv trope.
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.
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.
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.
I couldn’t watch the tiktok because there were no subtitles so maybe I am missing something.
I don’t understand how these glasses could be permitted in a medical setting. It’s becoming more normal for medical offices here to record visits and use AI to transcribe the visit. Sure, there are concerns about those in terms of accuracy, and there is a risk of unauthorized access and systems failing, but there is a list of vetted products build to meet privacy and security requirements. Kinda the same way I am only permitted to use Copilot at work because the data is not sent back to be used in training models.
I don’t believe Meta has any such programs or versions?
Copilot is 100% sending data and training on it
one of the first use case of augmented reality glasses was medical right after military. There are some positive applications for « smart » glasses. Not those from meta obviously but as with all tools there are good and bad applications and only the siths should deal in absolutes.
Does the urge to get the star wars quote in there override actually reading what I wrote?
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.
I don’t like this “smart glasses are evil” sentiment. They would improve the lives of many people. I’ve seen demonstrations of its use for blind people. Even people simply travelling and having everything translated automatically would be nice. But, yeah, going into a restroom with them on, or not asking for authorization from the patient to use them, crosses a big red line.
Lemmy would ban remembering things you’ve seen if they could.
I have a neurological vision disorder which I suspect augmented reality glasses would help a lot, but sod letting Meta see my life from a first-person perspective 24/7, or the lives of anyone around me for that matter. Also I suspect a genuine medical device would have to be made very obvious, you don’t want accessibility tech being mistaken for pervert tech. I wouldn’t take the risk frankly! It’s like if I’m talking to someone and they have a hearing aid in that’s fine, but if they’ve got headphones in I’m going to feel a little cheesed off on the face of it.
Also not American but I work for a trans-Atlantic company, those things sound like a PHI nightmare in a medical setting given Meta’s habit of indiscriminately hoovering up data like as many labradors in a pantry.
Nope. They are evil
I only spend time on Lemmy in bursts, but it has become pretty clear that most people in this “technology” community absolutely hate all forms of technology. It’s pretty weird.
“I made a technology that turns crushed orphans into profit”
You - oh wow any new technology is progress!!1
Reddit subversives can go back to reddit we don’t care
You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.
Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?
the “problem” might be that we don’t take kindly users that visibly argue in bad faith, ignoring points given and repeating cemented views.
can I ask what makes you prefer lemmy over reddit?
You don’t know shit about me. You have no idea about what faith I was asking in, and I made it very clear that I was not advocating or defending these actions. This community in particular seems like a giant a circle jerk. I get it. Even hypothetical scenarios are bad. Shame on me.
I didn’t even defend meta glasses, I was just interested in the philosophical ramifications of the difference in trusts on display.
I left reddit for a few reasons. It being filled with a bunch of lemmings who couldn’t bear to see anyone question the circle jerk was one of them, but it was mostly because I prefer FOSS and like trying out new things. Well, and the Nazis infestation.
We don’t live perverts and their glasses.
I feel like thats because technology is at odds with ethics in the majority of popular fields of tech and corporations care about money, not ethics. I’m definitely not a luddite, but I understand the hate when technology is used to opress instead of bettering human lives
Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.
But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.
I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.
But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.
I think many people are able to make a distinction between the technology companies and the technology. However in this particular discussion…how many companies are there actually offering smart glasses as a product to consumers? I’d argue as far as the general public is concerned the answer is only Meta right now. A company with a HORRIBLE reputation in regards to privacy. That makes it more theoretical in separating the idea of what smart glasses could be versus the reality of what they currently are. And right now, to me, smart glasses, particularly Meta’s glasses feels like a product with SO many privacy issues that I would question the judgment of anyone who chooses to use that product. Maybe that won’t be the case in the future, but unless things drastically change in regards to consumer data privacy standards, I’m going to stick to being very suspicious of them.
Also I’ll add— I did not downvote you but to me some of your other replies in this thread come across as almost a little intentionally obtuse.
I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question?
If you do it in a way that feels like you’re “just asking questions”, that’s a dishonest gesture often used in alt-right pipelines to astroturf discussions. sealioning is what it’s grown to be called.
If you were being genuine, I’m sorry you weren’t believed. But this is sadly an increasingly common internet tactic out there.
the reason you are downvoted is simple actually. you paint it like we hate all forms of technology but that’s wildly inaccurate. people take that as an accusation and they don’t like it, it makes it seem like you are here to argue in bad faith, with your opinion already cemented.
we hate technology that will affect us negatively. and capitalism along with the industry of surveillance advertising has made sure that even digitalized observations will affect people negatively, even if some does not know or want to admit. it can be said generally like that, because the general consumer uses devices and services where they are not in control of the data their devices collect.
we don’t want to be recorded, and that’s the end of it.besides, be sure to use your camera glasses! at home, between the 4 walls, when any other person in the room consented to being possibly recorded by it. yeah its a fun gadget, but what about not stretching further than your blanket reaches.
I don’t hate tech. But we are definitely in time of techno robber barons who have long drained any benefit of the doubt. Meta especially deserves no grace.
There’s a clear disctinction these days bewteen “Tech” and “Big Tech™️”. This is firmly in the latter.
We’re not anti technology, were vocally anti destructive and anti privacy technology. AI is terrible in almost every facet. It’s a neat technology on paper, but the environmental and societal impact far outweighs any positives from it. Camera glasses that record people that don’t want to be recorded and saved to a cloud where that information is trained on and out of the control of anyone that’s been recorded is a major privacy violation. Again, the technology of having smart glasses is neat on paper, but it reality is awful and prime for abuse.
So we don’t hate all technology, just the shit technologies, like those mentioned plus flock and Microsoft products to add to the pile. Not being critical of these technologies is insane to me, because it lets these companies push the limit of what’s acceptable without reprecussions.
As I said elsewhere, I can differentiate between technology and technology companies. I didn’t realize that was so odd.
You can’t seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.
If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you’re incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.
Is your stance that if the glasses were made by, say, Sony, no one would care?
I find that very difficult to believe, but would gladly read how you arrived at that conclusion.
It’s not a Meta only thing, but they are certainly one of the worst companies to have that data. No company should be able to collect data without express permission from anyone in that data. I don’t want literally any 3rd party storing video of me that I didn’t give them approval. An example would be if there were a medical procedure that were recorded on a private local server for reference or archive purposes, similar to any other medical records. Those records are protected by privacy laws like HIPPA where Meta glasses don’t have that.
The recording technology isn’t the problem, it’s consent and how that data is stored and handled after taken.
So if Sony did have their own glasses like Meta, I would 100% expect the backlash to be almost just as bad as it is for Meta. Again, Meta is worse, but bad and really bad are both degrees of bad that deserve criticism and pushback.
The article is about Facebook glasses. The topic is Facebook. Differentiating between Facebook spy glasses and “smart glasses in general” isn’t relevant here.
You sound like you’re arguing in bad faith. That’s a lot of the reason for why you’re getting downvoted.
You’ll find that there are tech enthusiasts and tech consumers. Tech enthusiasts are usually fans of FLOSS and want technology accessible for all; basically they want tech to work for them. Tech consumers are usually fans of what’s new on the tech market and become the product.
I’m part of the former. These glasses are awful in every way possible, so much so that the alleged benefits are minuscule in comparison to privacy breaches, misuse of data by a private company, training of AI models on that stolen data, parasitic and enforces a reliance on being online.
I’d much rather trust independent research than a private profit driven tech company to develop anything to assist disabilities. There’s already tech being developed that potentially restores some sight to the blind.
These glasses have got to go.
The topic of the community is “technology”. It’s not called “pro-technology”. Negative commentary on technology is included in “technology” as a topic.
Careful with that nuance around here
That’s not nuance, that’s making excuses for pervert glasses. You are both perverts.
I don’t like this “smart glasses are evil” sentiment.
That’s probably because you’re almost certainly not the type of person who will be victimized by pervert glasses.
The idea of them is incredible. I grew up watching sci fi galore with holographic AI personal assistants, and AR glasses, and 3D printers, etc. The idea of these technologies is amazing.
The reality of them is a little different. It’s hard to get behind certain advancements when they are completely in the control of a handful of people on Earth who have more wealth than everyone else combined. It’s impossible to ethically endorse these projects when the companies responsible have time and again proven themselves to be untrustworthy. And I mean, you shouldn’t trust them with your name and age, let alone videos and pictures of you—and strangers!—naked in a doctor’s office.
The technology and the possibilities are awesome and awe inspiring. The society we live in is not ready for them. Hell, much of the world still hasn’t caught up with how to adequately regulate and legislate for the internet revolution that happened over thirty years ago, nevermind for smart glasses that can always be recording.
I am confused. Why is this even up for debate? Why are we even putting up with people trying to debate this?
Because that’s how an open society with healthy exchanges of views works. Why are we even putting up with people trying to enforce their own insecurities on everyone else?
Or: Because the overton window got moved far enough and privacy now is a privilege of wealth.
Overton is an observation, not a force of influence. It isn’t why things are. We have no choice but to investigate and review whatever beliefs and values are within that window at any given time, given our ever changing world. To respond to an idea or belief with violence or censorship, instead of discussion, is to encourage tyranny. Bad ideas should be opposed by good ideas, not silenced due to some ppls discomfort with parts of our reality.
Doctors record as a way to take notes, it’s possible this guy is just an idiot. Probably a pervert though.
Because doctor. Superior species.
Something something first amendment.
Bullshit, voyeurism is a felony in most states. Invading someone’s privacy isn’t covered by the first fucking amendment you dolt.
I answered why it’s still debatable. Debating is free speech.
anything is debatable, it doesn’t make it legal or ethical. creeping on people with hidden cameras is fucking gross and needs even more regulation.
“X needs to be banned” is a sign someone has no place in the conversation.
Maybe if you’re a complete moron.
Saying “X should be banned” should be banned.
Pervert Glasses™️ by definition can not be HIPAA compliant.
The fact that this doctor even made the attempt should warrant a serious review of their conduct.
It seems according to the video the surgeon had already seen the patient in a state of undress so this is even bigger than HIPAA. If they were recording, he’s probably doing time for each patient visit.
Even if they were not recording from his perspective you have no idea what the stupid things are doing. You don’t really control them, Meta does.
