I love how they put a pic of "Epstein File Mark" in the article ;)

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
57 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 82 points 2 months ago (8 children)

"Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you're not a sex offender".

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.

    You can't claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you're stood in the same room with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do

    its meta

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    That's an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn't go that far.

    Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They're acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.

    However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn't limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn't matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people's information with Meta.

    Meta isn't breaking privacy laws - you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    When buying a gun and/or pervert glasses, yes, sounds very reasonable?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235223000867

    Given the recidivism rates in even the best performing countries is so high I disagree.

    Denmark, Finland and Norway have similar two year conviction rates when accounting for other factors.

    20-30% of sexual predators will offend again AND be caught within two years. Given the delays in reporting sexual abuse and the general lack of reporting to start with this is remarkably high.

    Given the risk these predators pose to innocent people they shouldn’t be trusted nor afforded the full rights available to ordinary citizens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    But that's their whole demographic.

  • source
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    I know it's a hot-take... But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (13 children)

    This isn't wise for the sole reason that they really are a great benefit to the visually impaired.

    Right now the tech is super useful, being able to read small text out loud and differentiate similar objects that certain conditions make difficult. However, the tech has the potential to do so much more.

    Banning it now would be like slapping a whole lot of disabled people in the face.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    They do not need to have hidden cameras to work as an aid. The push to make the cameras and microphones hidden is the problem.

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

    I think it’s reasonable if sight impaired people want to appear inconspicuous. You say this is “hiding” the glasses but do you expect them to walk around with a GoPro strapped to a helmet so they can have street signs read to them?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Who's pushing to make them hidden? If you want hidden cameras there's thousands of vastly superior options than thick, ugly, obvious glasses.

    Go search AliExpress right now for "hidden camera". Your mind will be blown.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Well in that case they should be regulated with a licence or even a prescription, right? To add to this, disabled people in the example you're putting forward don't need internet connectivity or filming capabilities. I see your concern but when the price is the privacy of the entire planet, I can't accept your argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    You think people should need a license to use technology like glasses and cameras. Listen to yourself!

    I don't know what kind of "anti" hole you fell into but you need to crawl back out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Technology that trains AI for fascistic multi-billion dollar companies? Films, tracks, listens to private and potentially sensitive conversations? Yeah, probably.

    I'm comfortable in my hole. Maybe you should take the advice of a stranger on the internet instead and grow the fuck up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    You're confused: You assume that all cameras on glasses will always be controlled by fascists.

    Did it ever occur to you that someone might make their own glasses? Or that a company could make a set that works offline?

    If you ran things, such technology would never happen because it would be banned before it got out the door.

    But you'd be ok with that because you live in a hole, with perfect eyesight and zero foresight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I don't really understand how making them offline only makes them any less dangerous? The issue is that the camera is discrete enough that people wont notice theyre being recorded, not that the glasses can connect to the internet.

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

    So to you, the glasses are irrelevant. You just hate hidden cameras... Like police and various misbehaving corporations all over the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    I wouldn't say that police cameras are hidden, I assume you are referring to bodyworn cams? And I really don't know who are the misbehaving corpos you speak of. Not saying they don't exist, just that is super vague. Do you mean cctv for security? Because I dont know if i would call those hidden either?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Police get caught committing crimes via hidden (or non-hidden, LOL) cameras all the time.

    The same is true for corporations (and plain old abusive bosses).

    Where I live, a company was caught making plans for illegal dumping (toxic waste) thanks to a hidden camera worn by a whistleblower.

    The most recent news about hidden cameras catching corporate misbehavior are mostly related to meat processing plants. In Texas, I believe they passed an unconstitutional law a few years ago banning people from recording (in public) near factory farms and meat processing plants.

    All this illegal/evil behavior was foiled thanks to hidden cameras.

    This is why I firmly believe in "one party" laws. Look that up if you don't know what it means.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Too complicated, and requires bureaucracy to work.

    Just ban that crap in public spaces.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Just ban them for everyone. Pervert glasses have no legitimate use.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 2 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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€.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Tbh, I would love an appropriate pair. I have issues with memory, particularly regarding faces. A set of smart glasses would be an almost perfect aid to me.

    Unfortunately, I don't trust any of the manufacturers not to abuse the hell out of all the data they generate. I'm also fully aware of the idiots abusing them, and ruining things for everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Just ban the sales of pervert glasses, period.

    It'll accomplish the same thing, but be a lot easier legally.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Uh oh, Mark's about to lose his glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    They gonna ban the usage in cinemas, then super markets, then the gyms, then they gonna ban guys to buy them, ban dogs to buy them, ban...

    They gonna "ban" everything else but the glasses selling itself... Can't touch big corpos you know...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Good thing they won't be able to buy used.

    /S

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    But then they won't have any customers.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Buying and using, if it should make sense.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    With smart glasses, everyone's a sex offender.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago
    [–] 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    A completely unenforceable idea driven by moral panic. We're already seeing plenty of cheap ones on temu, and other more covert types of cameras have been available for years. (Look up pen cameras on Amazon, you'll look at anyone with a pen in their shirt pocket very differently for the rest of your life)

    Not to mention there's already open source 3d printed smart glasses. Which means this would no doubt lead to calls for ID checks to buy a 3d printer.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    In a complete assault on right to self repair, several states are already trying to force 3d printers to validate what they're printing with some database. They used guns as the Trojan horse but everyone knew it wouldn't stay there and soon ip checks would be coming

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I'd be on board if "Sex offender" only included the people that everyone seems to think it includes. However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk, people who turned to prostitution when they fell on hard times, and children who were victims themselves.

    Only thing that will make both sides happy is banning them entirely, which I am 100% in favor of

    (Seriously, though, look up what gets classed as a sexual offence in your area. It's not just child molestation, and sexual assault.)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Can't ever be enforced until the largest list of the most depraved sex offenders on the planet can be "permabanned"

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I would agree only if the responsibility to not carry smart glasses is on the offender only, so vendors wouldn't have to check their ID, but the perp could be arrested and charged for having them.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/uk_politics@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Well meaning but I can’t see this working in practise. Just ban them altogether

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'm guessing banning them would be more difficult legislatively, and doing this firmly cements them as "pervert glasses" with associated stigma - then no-one buys them, then the market does the work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I just can’t see a way that actually works without forcing people to upload or show their id when you purchase one just in case you’re a registered sex offender

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Yes, I assume that that's the idea, but I suspect that the intended purpose isn't to stop sex offenders buying them, but to discourage others from buying them. Essentially a "soft" ban. I'm probably way off base, but I suspect an outright ban would be politically difficult, whereas it'd be difficult for meta or whoever to push back against this ("we want sex offenders to have our glasses" reads badly and further cements the idea that the only reason you'd want these is to film people without consent). So I assume there'd be a token system to process collected IDs, a tabloid would test the system and find it doesn't work (because it's primary purpose is social, not enforcement), but sales of these would drop, so the "sex offender ban" would have had its intended purpose.

    Reading this back, it all sounds a bit tin-foil-hatty, and I completely agree with you that an outright ban would be simpler; what's being proposed is what I'd do if I wanted to effectively ban them but didn't have the power/political capital to do so. Hmm. It's just occurred to me that I don't know who's calling to prevent sales to sex offenders. If it's a group outside government, then I bet I'm bang on the money, because then the requirement to implement an unworkable system becomes part of the payload, rather than an undesirable consequence to be mitigated (it essentially says to the government "why not just ban them outright, it'd be simpler") as well as the social engineering aspect.

    I love the idea that even by us interacting in the way we are, we're strengthening the link in the internet's collective knowledge between smart glasses and perverts!

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 20 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I would prefer we just assume only sex offenders would want them

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    My church hosts events each year where we have to run background checks on all the volunteers. Two years ago, a man who passed the background check was caught fondling an at risk person. HOW COULD THIS BE? He wasn't a sex offender!?!?!?! My point is, all these checks and registries only tell us who got caught, not who hasn't.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    Why not just ban pervert glasses without a prescription?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    a full ban for any and all pervert glasses would be much more useful

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Mm mm mm. Nothing says "problem solved" like sticking your head in the sand.

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Ridiculous. Just ban them from being sold

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I'm curious how they'd do this?

  • source