1846
Dumb glasses (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
411 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 179 points 7 months ago (144 children)

    Stopped this bullshit for a decade or so

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 144 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 64 points 7 months ago (19 children)

    All I'm saying is last time this tech trend came around, enough people who had a problem with it took drastic actions that directly affected the popularity of wearing a spycam on your face.

    Wouldn't surprise or upset me if history repeated itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.

    I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can't behave.

    Id rather nobody have one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    What about if we jail the people who wear spycams in public first? Then there won't be any violence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    I’d say there are some valid use cases. Like sports? Biking, skiing, anywhere you might use a GoPro. This might work for sports where it is impractical to wear a GoPro. Also if they did this right, if it had a decent hud and zoom, this could be really helpful for the visually impaired or for other disabilities or medical conditions. That’s where these would be really helpful to society. But they never focus on that kind of shit. Instead it’s tech bros who want to sell this as a gimmick people can record themselves fucking, or stupid shit in the bar for their TikTok.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I can help explain. People are threatening physical violence because they see surveillance as akin to violence. They know that you are not the only one with access to the camera, that corporations or police could see them through your camera. They know that corporations and police often abuse their power and harrass people who legally oppose them.

    These people feel they have no other options but violence because automatic surveillance is forced onto societies regardless of the people's vote. They believe violence is bad, but surveillance is worse, and since surveillance can lead to violence by the state, people would rather be violence towards surveillance tech now before they are threatened for whatever the government decides is illegal that day.

    I agree with you that violence is often not the answer, and that discourse and voting is the right way. Where we might disagree is how well discourse and voting works when both are manipulated for selfish gain. Violence is a last resort, never a first, and it's important to understand why people choose violence because it shapes society so drastically.

    I wouldn't punch a person wearing smart glasses, but I support both other people breaking their property and pushing to make that property illegal. Laws serve society, not the other way around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    I just saw a US Department of Justice report that 1 in 3 women are stalked in their lifetime. People with immigration issues are getting disappeared to concentration camps. US prisons are notoriously inhumane and people on parole can get violated for trivial reasons. The failure to understand that there are people who will feel seriously threatened by getting recorded without consent is just frustratingly ignorant.

    Yeah, there are a million security cameras everywhere but at least it is mostly just ignored and not an issue until law enforcement is actively looking for you (IDK what kind of Palantir evil is happening on the back end but that’s a whole nother issue). Social media is super random and chaotic. Why take the risk that your life will get blown up because you happened by a viral moment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    How is it illogical if it worked? It might be immoral, but there's a clear through-line of cause and effect.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (17 children)

    doing legal stuff in public

    Just because its legal doesn't mean its right

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [+] 23 points 7 months ago (15 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago* (8 children)

    sharing that information with facebook is the violence. i don't care if you take a photo and print it out to have it in a photo album. i care when i am in a big tech database, or even worse, an intelligence agency database. not that the two are very separate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    if i feel uncomfortable being filmed i will make myself heard, first nonviolently, then maybe with a bit of physical pressure. if I don't even get to know when i am being filmed that's intensely devious.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago*

    Yes…………

    Notice the ‘should’ in there?

    That word implys that he is talking about a moral prerogative and not a judicial matter…

    Which of course means its unenforceable. You're missing the point entirely if you think that even needs to be brought up.

    Him: “People Ought to // ought not to do this behaviour”

    Your: “Cant Force them hahahaha pwned 😎"

    Maybe just take a second to think about the implications of what you're reading instead of embarrassing yourself like this going autocomplete mode and writing irrelevant ass comments

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (4 replies)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 89 points 7 months ago (45 children)

    You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 43 points 7 months ago* (14 children)

    facebook knowing my personal information against my will goes against my right to privacy. there are also the ethics of recording people in secret instead of making it very obvious. no, a blinking red dot does not count, and it can also be covered with a special purpose-made made black sticker.

    now that i think about it, I'm just not comfortable being filmed without consent by strangers at all, in any way, regardless of where the images end up.

    i don't think people should get used to it either. it's incredibly creepy, even if no law is broken where you live.

    and yes, i do understand that in many places just being in public reduces your right to privacy so that you're legally allowed to be photographed as long as you're not the focus. i don't care. still creepy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago* (7 children)

    there's absolutely a way to draw a line. no smart glasses. even if there wasn't, no regulation for the sake of regulators being too dumb is the worst take possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Like respecting others' freedom to a reasonable degree of privacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    What fact about yourself are you least willing to share with strangers?

    If there is no way to tell if that is a reasonable question for me to ask, then by what metric do you decide whether or not to answer it? Does that metric act as a stand-in for "reasonableness" to you, and if so then how do you square it with your earlier insistence that drawing such a line is impossible? If not, why?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    The proliferation of cameras in public is not a good thing. I am yet to see data showing it reduces criminality (supposed to be the intent), meanwhile it's a massive surveillance system.

    And the fact that a given situation is bad is hardly a good argument to promote making it worse.

    Meta collects data on everyone: from contact info in cellphone through their apps, uploaded photos, videos etc. If you don't have an account nor consent to anything, they will just not show the data, but will still build the profile combining different sources and feed it to its algorithms.

    It has been a well known practice for many years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    *Unless Facebook does the unreasonable searching and we pay them for any data they collect

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (26 replies)
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (17 children)

    A clear violation of the social contract deserves a swift response. Those glasses come off your face, and onto the pavement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    When you say "fascist", you do realize that fascism involves crowd control and these glasses are a dream for a fascist regime? All the speech about "cameras everywhere is ok" falls right in the authoritarianism thinking, that's just a step from fascism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 12 points 7 months ago* (6 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    You really want these glasses, don't you? You're smart enough to debate the hypothetical, but miss the obvious point that new things will not be regulated as they should be, so the law doesn't function as it should in this situation. You cling tightly to the law as if it's doing what it's meant to do, when we both know you'd be taking advantage of the lack of laws for no clear benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (3 replies)
    • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    "Never believe that anti-Semites people like this person are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites people like this person have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

    Jean-Paul Sartre

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    You would have fought for the confederacy because it was legal to own slaves

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    The reason it's wrong is because the device filming is sending data to police and corporations, who frequently abuse the law. People do not have a problem with you using any other camera, such as a phone or camcorder. The problem is the specific device, not filming in general.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    Why do you assume it is only happening in public? Since it is hidden cameras, in glasses, they can be recording anywhere (and even if the user hasn't asked them to record explicitly, they are probably sending data back to their servers anyway - we know they have been doing that with microphones for literal decades already).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago*

    I protest against this for the same reason I would protest against the government flying tens of thousands of drones around the city to track every person's whereabouts and location history. Facebook gives the police unfettered access to their information. It's like a Ring doorbell, but dumber looking and it moves around.

    If you're sitting next to me with these fuckass glasses on, then you are giving the government live video feed of me. The only difference between this and a drone that's personally following me is that technically, this doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment because the government isn't the one sending a mindless drone after me with a camera, Facebook is. It's only technically not a violation of my right to privacy, in the same way that deporting people for saying "from the river to the sea" is only technically not a violation of the First Amendment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)