▲ 430 ▼ Calls in the UK to ban sex offenders from buying smart glasses (cybernews.com) submitted 2 months ago by madeindex@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 57 comments fedilink hide all child comments I love how they put a pic of "Epstein File Mark" in the article ;)
[+] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) Everything they can do, a go-pro or adjacent camera would work without issue and with less ambiguity. So why aren't we banning those for perverts too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Remy@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Disagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects. The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens. Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent. permalink fedilink source parent [–] flux@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Lack of imagination. One can easily imagine scenarios where glases can be useful outside filming other people. Simple tasks like getting a receipt and scanning it before throwing away, or getting dietary feedback on a menu items would be quite more easily achieved with smartglasses than otherwise. AR-assisted navigation in cities with to image data could be quite useful as well. Not to mention if one has sight issues; I can imagine describing environments or reading texts being wildly useful for some. Perhaps consider first banning devices that are designed for secret filming, e.g. "car key" cameras, watch cameras, pen cameras, powerback cameras, and yes, glass cameras... You can find them from Amazon for <100€, which is much more affordable option in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Those would be all very valid uses but the problem is is that they're not smart glasses. They are just normal glasses (well non prescription fake plastic glasses) with a camera in them. If they could give you directions or something on a sort of holographic heads up display they might have some use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flux@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The new Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses do have a display. But in any case, these applications work almost just as fine with speakers as well, and the Ray-Ban glasses had those and supports reading documents, describing surrounds etc. Plain glasses with camera come much cheaper. Though now that I looked it up, the Meta glasses are surprisingly affordable as well. edit: scratch that, I don't know what I was looking.. For me Ray-Bans would be 500€ and Metas maybe 1000€. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Why do so many people focus of the almost entirety useless non display meta glasses? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children) Everything they can do, a go-pro or adjacent camera would work without issue and with less ambiguity. So why aren't we banning those for perverts too? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Remy@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Disagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects. The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens. Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Remy@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (1 child) Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Disagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects. The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens. Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Disagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects. The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens. Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flux@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago (3 children) Lack of imagination. One can easily imagine scenarios where glases can be useful outside filming other people. Simple tasks like getting a receipt and scanning it before throwing away, or getting dietary feedback on a menu items would be quite more easily achieved with smartglasses than otherwise. AR-assisted navigation in cities with to image data could be quite useful as well. Not to mention if one has sight issues; I can imagine describing environments or reading texts being wildly useful for some. Perhaps consider first banning devices that are designed for secret filming, e.g. "car key" cameras, watch cameras, pen cameras, powerback cameras, and yes, glass cameras... You can find them from Amazon for <100€, which is much more affordable option in the first place. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Those would be all very valid uses but the problem is is that they're not smart glasses. They are just normal glasses (well non prescription fake plastic glasses) with a camera in them. If they could give you directions or something on a sort of holographic heads up display they might have some use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flux@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The new Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses do have a display. But in any case, these applications work almost just as fine with speakers as well, and the Ray-Ban glasses had those and supports reading documents, describing surrounds etc. Plain glasses with camera come much cheaper. Though now that I looked it up, the Meta glasses are surprisingly affordable as well. edit: scratch that, I don't know what I was looking.. For me Ray-Bans would be 500€ and Metas maybe 1000€. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Why do so many people focus of the almost entirety useless non display meta glasses? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children) Those would be all very valid uses but the problem is is that they're not smart glasses. They are just normal glasses (well non prescription fake plastic glasses) with a camera in them. If they could give you directions or something on a sort of holographic heads up display they might have some use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flux@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The new Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses do have a display. But in any case, these applications work almost just as fine with speakers as well, and the Ray-Ban glasses had those and supports reading documents, describing surrounds etc. Plain glasses with camera come much cheaper. Though now that I looked it up, the Meta glasses are surprisingly affordable as well. edit: scratch that, I don't know what I was looking.. For me Ray-Bans would be 500€ and Metas maybe 1000€. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Why do so many people focus of the almost entirety useless non display meta glasses? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flux@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) The new Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses do have a display. But in any case, these applications work almost just as fine with speakers as well, and the Ray-Ban glasses had those and supports reading documents, describing surrounds etc. Plain glasses with camera come much cheaper. Though now that I looked it up, the Meta glasses are surprisingly affordable as well. edit: scratch that, I don't know what I was looking.. For me Ray-Bans would be 500€ and Metas maybe 1000€. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago Why do so many people focus of the almost entirety useless non display meta glasses? permalink fedilink source parent