the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved…

The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.

They still send data when they’re not recording. In either case, the doctor needs to be sued.

“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.

Sued for what?

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.

Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room?

Honestly, they shouldn’t be.

I’d say they shouldn’t be, but either way, they sure as heck don’t normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients.

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?

Quote where I defended it.

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.

So, now you have to trust:

1. That the person is not intentionally recording you.

2. 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.)

I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.

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 consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?

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”.

That’s a fair point. I’m convinced the Venn diagram overlaps more than I originally assumed.

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.

Bro even Macy’s sells these things in store. They’re a mass market product.

I can tell you as a tech literate person in healthcare… That I am in the minority of security conscious and knowledgeable users of said technology.

I expect HIPPA violations of unparalleled proportion from this new tech.

People are already terrible at security, and now they have even more information recording methods to mess up.

So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.

HIPAA :p

Ain’t no hippa hippo here

Oops, I got too much P and not enough A.

I want to believe you’re earnest and not some trolling chud here to promote the tech.

the ratios speak for themselves I guess.

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.

The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?

If your proctologist had an OnlyFans-branded go-pro strapped to their head, would you drop trou and bend over?