Lawmakers in the U.K. say smart glasses raise serious questions about consent and privacy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago (6 children)

It's a shame that we've developed covert network-connected spycams widely available from some of the most dangerously centralized organizations ever conceived, yeah

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    It's really shameful, because people with vision impairments could use something like these without being reliant on said networks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    They could easily be medical condition access only. It’s not like this option is taken off the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Without being reliant on Spycorp Inc?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    No of course spycorp gonna then try and argue anything with eyeballs = impairment.

    I do feel those with visual impairment is a good tech case. But it needs to be highly regulated on both side.

    FTR I hate the things. And big tech can’t be trusted. However the tech still has a reasonable purpose if big tech could keep its big nose out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments