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.
Because if a doctor puts up a hidden camera only the doctor (and anyone they might personally share the footage with) can see it. With those glasses everything goes through Meta’s servers and we don’t know who has access to the footage.
So is say the scope of the invasion of privacy is the difference.
its invading privacy. a Patient can use hidden camera,often times doctors/ other employee makes condescending comments of patients while they are under anesthesia about the patients.
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.
Without evidence, the idea that there’s a hidden camera in the exam room is just paranoid speculation. By contrast, this was an actual visible camera in the exam room, and a camera that was obviously the doctor’s own personal device. It makes sense to worry more about the camera you know is real.
It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?
The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google… etc… are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn’t been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.
I’m sorry, it wasn’t a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you’d know.
A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I’m guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn’t a HIPAA violation.
Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated.
I guess I understand your overall point It’s probably valid to say that phones shouldn’t be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones).
I’d say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it’s their primary purpose. That’s basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term “glasshole” followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up.
I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it’s basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren’t already. It’s like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person… but I’d feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him.
But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up.
I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge.
It’s like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person… but I’d feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him.
This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about.
If a doctor points their personal smartphone camera at a patient during an exam, as the doctor in the OP did with their camera, that is a massive issue. Why are you defending blatant violations?
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
That’s the thing though, it’s multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don’t just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of “accidental” system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.
That the person is not intentionally recording you.
That they are not unintentionally recording you.
(Because if a camera is on, and eventually connected to the Internet, well… I should not have to explain how that can be an issue in this forum at least. We now have to trust the users tech literacy, and security diligence.)
what does that even mean? the whole point of the tech industry is for tech-literate people to work to provide products and services to the broadly tech-illiterate public. the goal of a tech product is to be used with as little tech-literacy as possible. why would you assume that someone is highly tech-literate just because they use the product of a tech company?
I get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it… or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going “I bought this but realize I don’t know how to use it, and it’s too much work, do you want it”.
This isn’t even a matter of illiterate or literate.
If someone is wearing a camera always assume it’s recording. There’s literally no reason to speculate on the owners intent or competency.
Many webcams now ship with lens covers these days. You wanna take a guess why that is and why you might want a lens cover for an internet connected camera you own and control?
Ignoring possibilities for malicious software being a concern, Meta having control over their product with an internet connected recording device with AI facial recognition bullshit baked in is enough of a reason for concern. And how often do we hear about company mishandling of data leading to private information leaking?
Oops my camera was on, oh no. Why even leave an opening for a careless mistake like that to happen? At the least you’re asking for trouble.
Medical exams can be scary enough for patients w/o having to worry about a camera on someone’s face pointed at them. Patients have a right to feel comfortable in a medical setting and it’s in doctor’s best interest that they feel safe so they can do their job properly.
As for the “whatabout” hidden camera bs. Maybe worry about the one pointed at your face before you worry about the one you don’t see. If you don’t trust your doctor to not have hidden cameras maybe it’s time to find a new doctor?
Not arguing with your points (we agree), but regarding my comment about literacy (not the poster who responded):
I was implying that one needs a basic level of tech literacy to even think about cameras as always being on. (As evidenced by the OP, and the poster who replied to me)
As WE know, “I shut off the camera” does not mean the camera is not recording, and “I shut off the WIFI” does not mean the data is secure. Some do not know this.
It does come down to trust, and if you walk into my doctor’s visit with a camera strapped to your face, you’ve lost mine. Doesn’t matter if it’s on or not. I distrust your descion-making abilities on a fundamental level. Plus, if they’re the kind of person who would try and film someone without them knowing, they’re also the kind of person to lie about it being off. But honestly, they might not even be trying to record surreptitiously, they might do it on accident. I’ve got a buddy who worked in IT customer support for a medical device company and would tell us horror stories, the amount of American doctors who have absolutely no fucking clue how basic technology works is staggering. Like truly scary, considering how highly we regard them and their presumed intelligence.
That’s because there is generally implicit trust that there is no hidden cameras. The open display of a camera effectively destroys that trust. If everyone was always suspicious of there being hidden cameras everywhere, functioning in society would be pretty difficult.
Sure, but if a person doesn’t trust their doctor to have a camera in their possession in the room, why would they trust that same doctor not to have one hidden?
That’s what I’m saying. They have that trust and the visible camera would destroy it in an instant because it’s expected to be private. You can’t expect people to assume that there will be something that shouldn’t be there and validate that fact.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.
From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that’s on their face, then you can’t rule out that they’d do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.
At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn’t come off suggesting otherwise.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
These hypothetical doctors almost certainly have a smartphone with them every time they enter the room. Why doesn’t that trigger this loss of trust effect? That can certainly (and arguably more easily) secretly record audio and video.
Smartphones haven’t been called “pervert boxes”. It’s the implication of what someone that would buy and wear the glasses would also be able to do.
We implicitly trust doctors just because doctors are generally trustworthy for body things. At the same time, the pervert glasses are called pervert glasses because people have used them for that stuff and we implicitly distrust people that wear them because of the implication.
So if I see a doctor with pervert glasses on even go they are not recording, I’m immediately distrustful of their phone too. The trust of them being a doctor is immediately broken.
I hope I was clear, it’s not if the phones can more easily record or not, it’s the current general perception of those glasses and how it warps peoples perception of others.
I don’t know how old you are, but when smartphones were first on the market there was real concern that people (presumably “perverts”) would use them to take pictures of people without their knowledge. I recall that there was even a push for legislation to require smartphone cameras to make noises when taking a picture, in response to this concern.
And look at how you’re describing them. “Pervert glasses”. Are legally blind people who use this technology to better navigate the world “perverts”?
It seems like the real concern is that so-called smart glasses are new, not that they actually change much. If/When they become aa commonplace as phones, I’m guessing no one will even notice them, just as we do with everyone having a phone.
I was around when smartphones were introduced to the market, I had to learn how to use them and teach everyone on my family, and I don’t recall the concern. Maybe I was too young to care.
In any case, I’m not against what you are presenting here not the technology itself, I’m just telling you why the trust is being broken. As you described it with phones, context matters, and the fact that the main glass producers right now are who they are is a massive factor on public perception.
In fact, I use glasses and it would be cool to have some AR on them. I hope that the huge negative perception of these glasses push others to create more security/privacy aware glasses and expand the market so people that have real use for them like blind people can make use of the technology without being subjected to the negative perception of the RayBan Meta glasses.
Are legally blind people who use this technology to better navigate the world “perverts”?
If we limited the use case to people with genuine visual impairment that would be fine. Or even made them dayglo orange so they stand out and people can at least be aware of them.
Creeps are already building an industry on ways to defeat the warning light. Trust has been lost out of the gate. And the opportunity for AI, facial recognition and other creepy tech is just around the corner - soon you’ll have doxing, nudify and other reprehensible garbage running with these devices. watch.
creeps are going to creep, stop supplying them with better creep tools.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
Having a hidden camera in a room would be illegal. The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%. Just to survive, people have to be able to trust in something rather than question every single aspect, and trusting that your medical office isn’t illegally wired to record you secretly is a safe bet. However, when a dumbass walks in with their personal gear that is designed to record and save that recording into a cloud is not even remotely acceptable, especially when that cloud is Meta.
Comparing the two like the hidden camera is a common thing is some major tinfoil hat shit.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.
How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.
Because hidden cameras aren’t common and given the legality of the situation, the risk to any medical professional to try and sneak in and use a hidden camera is extremely high. It’s not impossible, it’s just extremely unlikely. There are many many things in life that can be trusted because the odds are extremely favorable, and trusting that there aren’t hidden cameras in a doctor’s office is one of them.
Again, to not trust this reality is conspiracy level insanity. If you wanted, you can go in and sweep a medical room for hidden cameras if you’re so insecure that that’s what’s needed for piece of mind, but everyone will think you’re loony tunes.
You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.
No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.
Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.
It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”
It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.
I see what you’re saying. When I say not common, I mean I trust that it’s not common or likely for a doctor to secretly use a phone or other hidden camera, whatever method that may be, to record, not that the phones themselves are uncommon.
I think one big difference between the two is I trust my doctor, but if they walked in with a recording device on their face I would immediately lose all of that trust even if they said it wasn’t recording. If I saw my doctor walk in with their phone camera exposed, I would also have concerns, but less than the glasses, mostly because the glasses have one function, and that’s recording. Seeing a phone would mean there could be malicious behavior, but not necessarily. It would be something that I would bring up if noticed.
At the end of the day, you have to have some level of trust or you’ll go crazy. It’s easy to trust that your doctor isn’t secretly recording you, but not so much when they’re exposing the camera to you.
You can’t genuinely believe this, can you? If a person is a creep who wants to record people in private situations without their consent, there’s a much higher than 0% chance.
Yes, I and damn near everyone else believes it. Do you sweep for cameras whenever you go to the doctor? What about public restrooms? If there is a creep doctor that is willing to risk everything for a peep, yes, it’s possible. How many out of the millions of doctors out there do you think have put a hidden camera in their office? If it’s less than 1 in 100, then that is near 0%.
It’s because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.
I know enough about technology and big tech companies to be completely unwilling to believe that any device claiming to be “off” or even just to have some feature “off” can be trusted not to be collecting data anyway, at least in certain situations. They have completely and utterly destroyed that trust, and are at this very moment still dancing gleefully on its corpse. It doesn’t really make any sense for them to act surprised when we refuse to believe a company like Meta will take anyone’s privacy seriously.
That’s why regulations and standards need to be put in place for this emerging technology.
As you said, no one should be trusting meta for anything, especially privacy. That’s why physically covered cameras with foolproof hardware methods showing when the uncovered cameras are recording is needed.
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.
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.
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.
don’t stop there, call the fucking regulatory agencies for the hospital and the doc. the hospital is obviously at enormous risk for the liability this moron is opening up and probably would like to fire him before the lawsuits land on them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
well I’ll take it further, I think growing up with technology, it’s often hard to take a step back and to recognize like what it is. I don’t think its only about corporations (yet largely). I read summa technologiae by stanislav lem a long time ago and frankly it depresses me a bit from time to time. good read though if you can stomach it.
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.
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.
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.
The topic of the community is “technology”. It’s not called “pro-technology”. Negative commentary on technology is included in “technology” as a topic.
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.
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.
old school 80’s/90’s sci-fi humor. They’d often use some superpower or new tech with “x-ray vision” that can conveniently see through clothes but not skin…
I imagine the rest can be left to your imagination on how that humor was utilized.
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.
Any product created by a company that has demonstrated evil intent should be considered evil, even if there are legitimate valid uses. You have to trust not only the person using it, but also the company that controls what the device can/will do with or without the users constent.
The smart glasses aren’t evil in the same way that AI or social media aren’t evil, they all have huge potential to enrich and enable all of society. The problem is that they are for profit regardless of the consequences so any hope of that enrichment or net positive outcome actually becoming real is delusional and the sad reality is that they will be subverted and weaponised to make money at every opportunity.
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.
the restroom is no different from anywhere else. you must understand that people are not leaving their homes for the reason of being recorded by idiots and the makers of their accessories. you need to respect people universally, independently of the place, no moee or less in tge restroom then anywhere else.
So his solution to getting sued is that he creates another reason to be sued? Wearing a potentially always on, personally controlled recording device, that has been reported to send the footage to overseas workers to categorize it without user knowledge, in a HIPAA setting is just asking for another lawsuit.
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.
I used to work at a hospital and I have experience with doctors who firmly believe that their comfort and convenience tops HIPAA and anything else. I had to file several violations for doctors who wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.”There is a nonzero chance that this doctor didn’t even continue thinking about the consequences beyond “but I need to have the latest thing”.
By the time I stopped working there they were using an app that had an E2E encrypted connection to the medical records system so they could actually even get test results and such as texts. The instances I was describing happened in the early days of iMessage right as we were starting the upgrade of the pager system. Most of the problem doctors had recently finished residencies or internships at hospitals that had already upgraded.
If this was in 1992 ok, valid point. Anyone currently forcing doctors to use pagers when secure alternatives that allow for better communication exist deserves pushback.
Eh, I still have a pager and so do a lot of other people in hospitals. It’s mainly because most hospitals have locations that eat cell phone reception.
wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.
Wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers for what? My office still has pagers, but that’s mainly because we’re in the hospital’s basement and don’t have very good reception.
The rest of the hospital generally works off of sms for messaging when a patient is roomed, or for being on call. I don’t know how you could break hipaa using a sms in place of a pager.
I dont think ots the SMS itself that breaks HIPPA but rather the device which is commonly used to send SMS. most peoole use their cell phones for SMS purposes and cells phones do have some secret recording capabulities if youre savvy enough with them.
Doesn’t really matter what you use as long as you aren’t utilizing any protected health information (hpi). If you are using information that can identify a patient then you need to be using an approved encrypted device. Generally providers tend to avoid utilizing that type of information just out of habit.
You don’t really discuss patient information or their care with anyone over mobile devices. If you need input from someone directly concerning patient care you tend to do it over EMR so your colleagues have context about who you’re talking about.
Most pager systems are actually huge privacy violations. $20 for a software defined radio dongle and a few minutes will give you plaintext pager notifications for hospitals across your state.
Did a project on it when I was breaking into cybersecurity.
There are encrypted paging setups, but there’s a lot of places still running legacy.
I mean as long as they aren’t sending protected health information it really isn’t a HIPAA violation. We use an encrypted pager at my clinic, but that’s just because the hospitals guidelines are stricter than HIPAAs. For what we and most providers still use pagers for nowadays could be done over an unencrypted network. Most of the time it’s just to call us to a certain room number. It’s not like people really have the patience to type out words using two buttons at more.
There’s not enough information in the article. For example has complaint actually been raised, because it’s sort of sounds like she’s just complained online about it but hasn’t actually done anything official.
I don’t know specifics about pictures about video, but considering I get data protection notice just so they can process my basic information when dealing with NHS, I imagine this is an offence that could make the doctor easy to sue over this.
First amendment only protects you from being persecuted by the government. Being ostracized, shamed and unfortunately attacked in the middle of the night by anonomous people isn’t against the first amendment.
Depends on the debate. The government can’t stop them from debating. If you host a debate though, without any government affiliation, you’re not forced to let them attend. In the same way, if you own a forum on the internet, you can silence anyone you want to. The literal ONLY thing the first amendment protects against, is government persecution for speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how people react to said speech. Just because someone cries “Muh first amendment!” doesn’t mean you actually have to respect them. You can shame them, silence them, ostracise them. Put up billboards telling people how fucking insane they are. Take out an ad in the local newspaper to display their bullshit in an attempt to shame them into submission, tell them to go fuck themselves. If they’re in your house, you can toss them out. YOU can do whatever you want. YOU can’t breach the first amendment, only the government can.
It also doesn’t apply outside the US (there’s a whole planet out there guys) so regardless of the nuance of its construction, it isn’t relevant here anyway.
I do find it funny how much people hate our society’s fundamental rights and want to limit them as much as possible. AIN’T NO FUCKIN FREE SPEECH HERE. WE HATE THAT SHIT.
Fundamental rights? You don’t actually have a fundamental right to free speech, nobody has to respect that, only the US government as it pertains to their constitution. None of this applies to the first amendment because IT’S NOT THE US GOVT TRYING TO RESTRICT IT. You’re in a world-wide forum. Do you think anyone in another country gives a shit what your government thinks about your US rights? Say what you want, but literally nobody has to care what you think
The only time a doctor has recorded me, they asked for consent first and then the recording went into a HIPAA compliant EMR system. This doctor has done neither.
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?
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.
Tbh I’d be making a complaint to the practice, med org (if any) the practice is a part of, as well as the AMA. That’s absolutely egregious, and entirely indefensible as a medical practitioner.
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!
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.
I could use them to document, diy content creators would get some great close up work details …hell even the OG google glasses are in wide use in warehouse logistics for their huds. There are use applications. But they’re not advertising for that. They’re advertising for abuse. And they’re getting that demographic
do whatever you want with other consenting adults in the privacy of your home.
No one would say shit.
It’s the upskirt downshirt creepshot assholes, it’s the pick up artists and racist harrasment dickheads that should be beaten in the fucking street.
I feel bad for the people with vision impairment that these could genuinely help, but instead of making an accessibility tool, meta’s chosen to make a privacy invasion tool that has some great accessibility uses, then try to use that as cover for the creeps.
it’s all so fucking on point for the creepshow that is meta
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.
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 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
Look up the Rokid smart glasses. They’re pretty close to what you’re describing. Camera, AI assistant, live translations in over 80 different languages, auto transcribe, monochrome heads up display, and they look like normal glasses. They’re surprisingly lightweight for the amount of technology that’s in them.
A little pre warning though, they start at $599. There is also the Even Realities G1 smart glasses which are a little cheaper and do most of the same stuff, but there is no camera on them.
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.
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.
Ok so you fundamentally don’t understand that in public places you have no expectation of privacy and can be recorded or photographed without consent in most of the world. You might not like that or agree with it, but that’s how it is.
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.
It’s not at all like that, because guns and knives are different and give different results. You can buy any number of “spycam” glasses online whenever you want.
Laws already exist around using them in private settings. They also exist around using them in public settings too - you have no expectation of privacy in public, because you’re in public. You can’t stop someone taking your photo while you’re walking down the street.
you do realize the light can be blocked by 1 cent worth of electrical tape? that there are tutorials online showing how to block just the light using a hole punch?
there’s always going to be ways to circumvent the light. I say restrict the devices to the visually impaired. everyone else can use a fucking camera.
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.
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.
The HIPAA rules are full of “Observe best practices” and “Take reasonable precautions” terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason.
They’ll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it’s not until there’s a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone’s records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I’ve been.
Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I’d give it 70:30 because it’s a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen.
This is actually one of the better use cases of the captured content, if contained to local medical systems used, not uploaded to cloud services, for data and diagnostics. Doc should be getting consent though and explaining he use cases.
No. No dude. I went to a doctor who had a camera in the room and asked consent each time like twenty years ago (I lived there). The camera would be plugged in if I consented. The doctor was still fully doctoring.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only community I am subscribed to are the moment is this one. Maybe that’s why? Like you said, I’m just new.
I’m a tech enthusiast. I love them 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :/
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.
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…
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.
I hate it. I recently went through a formal diagnosis process with a psychiatrist. And he used AI transcription. It was clear from the notes that it was mostly surface-level details. The notes included things I mentioned, but lacked depth and synthesis. The point of requiring doctors to write down notes is not just for record-keeping. The synthesis step is essential. And you completely lose that with an AI transcriber. Instead of summarizing with a clinical synthesis in mind, it just blindly copies down surface-level details. You end up with a long and detailed but extremely vapid session record.
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.
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.
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.
Somehow people sharing your point of view in my experience are mostly men and mostly imagine it as lots of handsome young-looking people walking around in half-transparent elastic body suits in some future where everyone is “fixed” to be fit and look nice. And in that kind of sci-fi books somehow women are prevalent among characters, but the leading ones are men.
You get the general idea, yes?
I’m a very social awkward person, but honestly that worldview hints you should get out more. Again, I should follow my own advice, but.
Actually, we are probably both wrong and it’s the nand flash on his phone. The kind of tool bag buying meta pervert glasses probably isn’t actually a big techie…
innocemt until proven guilty. The only time they can reveal the person’s name aand face is if theyre convicted of something AND theyre an adult.
Also a bonus if he does get convicted of this and his name and face gets revealed is that other people who recognize his name and face and who have ALSO been his victims can also then come forward and put additional charges on him. And who knows maybe he has so many victims itll be like a liife sentence when everyone finishes dumping more and more charges onto him.
Humans have an a amazing ability to be idiotic so you cant always blame with malice what can be explained by idiocracy…but iif he is malicious? Ya throw the book at him. And more.
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.
We didn’t do that here in America, because perversity is a human right in MAGA America.
To be fair, “MAGA America” is no more responsible for the lack of a law than, e.g. Obama America. I think it’s more likely because Americans are less likely to be in close enough proximity to strangers to have up-skirt photos taken than in Japan and South Korea which do have these laws. That’s not to say we don’t have unscrupulous perverts of course, I remember a man being ejected and banned from a convention I attended because he was walking around with a phone on a selfie stick held low and beneath other people. Bizarre behavior.
(Edit: I looked into it more, and it’s not really clear to me that Japan has any actual laws about this, I found a lot of conflicting info. It seems it may be an Industry self-regulation thing in Japan, and also you didn’t actually say anything about laws in the first place. South Korea does have relevant laws though.)
“9 out of 10 dentists recommend not smashing your teeth so I cant upcharge you for more replacement teeth… But that one guy… IM that one guy! Mwahahaha! Gimme yohr money!”
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.
What possible medical use would they have? It essentially doesn’t offer anything that a smartphone doesn’t. You want to hear your doctor asking ai about your symptoms?
Yeah, a hands free smart phone in this case. More sanitary. I never mentioned an llm, but being able to image a rash and quickly cross reference it with a database could be useful.
“Is genocide OK if after you sweep away all those no-good ‘Undesireables’ you get to build a seaside villa and resort AND you now get to pump oil out of the ground from where those peoples’ homes once were? …Some experts say YES! And we agree! Here’s why…”
This hour, a new sensation will sweep across the globe, the creators of “top 10 lists” return to ask the questions that nobody else will in “Articles Like These”, staring A.L. Clanker (coming soon to screens near you).
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.
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…
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.
Yeah, it’s unfortunate but until we get robust privacy laws (which won’t happen) none of this shit can ever be trusted. Anyone arguing to put more cameras and microphones into our lives at this point should be met with an ass beating. If our politicians were worth anything those laws would have been in place before it ever got this far. Instead they’re all bought and paid for.
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.
The microphone can’t be disabled unfortunately. The developers claim that all audio recordings are deleted immediately after the glasses provide a response, however their privacy policy does mention that some necessary personal data may be processed by third parties in countries like China, Japan, and the U.S.
Their privacy policy doesn’t actually say who has access to user data.
Yeah it’s a shame, I’d be up for some augmented reality. Except it would mostly be ads, and too many people can’t be trusted not to be pervy with the cameras.
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.
I can’t believe that image in the thumbnail came from official Meta marketing. I have to imagine that Jared the Subway guy didn’t make the cut because he didn’t look creepy enough.
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.
Years ago people discussed if having a mobile next to the body could be bad for health, specially brain, now we see doctors using smart glasses with wifi 5 and 5g mobile network.
Fashion timesWoman Calls Out Doctor Wearing Smart Glasses During Consultation Where She Had To Take Off Her Clothes: 'They Need To Be Banned'A woman's discomfort with a doctor wearing smart glasses during a consultation has sparked debate over privacy and the use of camera-equipped technology in healthcare settings.
