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.
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.
