"Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you're not a sex offender".
post
I know it's a hot-take... But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.
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.
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.
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?
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.
People with accessibility needs deserve to look stylish too, and strapping a camera to their face isn't particularly a look
And what if you're visually impaired and you are a pervert? Joking... /s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So to you, the glasses are irrelevant. You just hate hidden cameras... Like police and various misbehaving corporations all over the world.
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?
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.
Too complicated, and requires bureaucracy to work.
Just ban that crap in public spaces.
Just ban them for everyone. Pervert glasses have no legitimate use.
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?
Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing
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.
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.
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€.
Why do so many people focus of the almost entirety useless non display meta glasses?
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.
Just ban the sales of pervert glasses, period.
It'll accomplish the same thing, but be a lot easier legally.
Uh oh, Mark's about to lose his glasses.
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...
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.
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
Didn't this come to law in California already? Really infuriating that there's actual possibility of 3d printers being regulated this way.
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.)
However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk
Nope, in the UK it requires more than just public urination to be seen as a sex offender. Unless you are windmilling and pissing all over someone's window.
How does a child victim end up a sex offender [without doing something else]?
Can't ever be enforced until the largest list of the most depraved sex offenders on the planet can be "permabanned"
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.
Well meaning but I can’t see this working in practise. Just ban them altogether
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.
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
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!
I would prefer we just assume only sex offenders would want them
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.
Mm mm mm. Nothing says "problem solved" like sticking your head in the sand.

no comments (yet)