1110
Woman Calls Out Doctor Wearing Smart Glasses During Consultation Where She Had To Take Off Her Clothes: 'They Need To Be Banned' (www.fashiontimes.co.uk)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
363 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent