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

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.

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.

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?

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

Yes, I totally understand the logic. It's just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:

1. A hidden camera is more dangerous for the victim because it is less risky for the creep/abuser.
2. You will not reasonably believe that a doctor will have a hidden camera inside his office.
3. A camera exposed to the naked eye is less dangerous for the victim because it is more risky for the creep/abuser.
   • The abuser is unlikely to take that risk because he could lose too much, much more than he would gain.
4. So it is reasonable not to believe that your doctor will record or photograph you with a camera exposed to the naked eye since it is inherently riskier for the creep, and it is not reasonable to believe otherwise.

Although, the problem here then shifts to the hardware itself. Like, since these lenses were probably closed source and proprietary hardware, and their software as well, then you don't have a way to prove that if you turn off the camera on said lens (either via the software kill-switch or via the hardware kill-switch) it is actually turning off, or just appears to turn off when it is actually still on but disguised as being turned off. And taking into account that there are precedents of devices doing this (a particularly famous case was that of a smart TV that even when you turned it off, it was not really off, but in a false shutdown, a very low power state where the screen was off, but the core and some telemetry processes, and the microphone, were still running and, thus, recording and sending everything that was recorded to their servers). So the only rational position, at least from a Game Theory point of view, is to assume that every device that is both closed source and closed hardware, that is not Free, Libre and Open Source Software, and Libre and Open Source and Schematics Hardware (yeah, even releasing their schematics), does the same thing.

You are not understanding the trust issue.

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.

As others have said, trust is broken.

Did I ever say it doesn't include concealed phones? Do you sweep for hidden cameras, including concealed phones everytime you go to the doctor?

Again, it has happened, but when it's single digit instances out of thousands or millions of doctors, that's almost never.