So people are upset about this, but have no trouble with the government tracking where they are and what they are doing 24x7x365.
If you are in public, you have no right to privacy and are free to be recorded. CCTVs, phones, glasses, whatever.
That has been the law for hundreds of years.
Why the beatup and ‘outrage’ against these glasses of all things? How many times a day does someone have their mobile phone pointed at you, and you have no idea if they are taking photos or videos?
So people are upset about this, but have no trouble with the government tracking where they are and what they are doing 24x7x365.
What are you basng the back half of that statement on? The people complaining about these glasses are also the ones complaining about overreach and surveillance because they are the same thing.
Why the beatup and ‘outrage’ against these glasses of all things?
Presumably for the same reason people have disliked other secret/hidden cameras in the past.
How many times a day does someone have their mobile phone pointed at you, and you have no idea if they are taking photos or videos?
Exactly. They have it pointed at you. In other words, you are able to recognise that there is a camera there and that they may be filming. If someone walks into a public toilet or past a kindergarten wearing glasses, how would you know if they were recording? These glasses are designed to look like pretty standard consumer glasses and are difficult to recognise as smart devices from a distance. It also creates a problem where literally anyone wearing glasses in an area or situation where recording could be problematic becomes a suspect, even if they’re just wearing normal glasses and have done nothing wrong.
Ok, point taken, but there’s a difference between in public and public toilet.
Legally perhaps, but not in terms of wearing these glasses. As I said, they are designed to look like regular glasses (not just sunglasses), so they don’t look out of place in private and intimate spaces in the same way a smartphone can.
I get your initial frustration regarding people’s general lax attitudes towards privacy and civil liberties, but pretending you can’t see any difference here is very silly. Glasses are normal in all situations of life; we have them with us and on us at all times. No one walks around holding pens, key fobs, clocks or any other kind of weird gotcha object you once saw in a James Bond film, outside of very specific situations where those items make sense. In addition, smart glasses are a mainstream tech item being designed, developed and pushed to market by big tech companies - they are far more capable and easy to use than your novelty spy items from Aliexpress.
Button cameras are a thing, and shirt pockets are basically made for pens. I was into spy tech as a kid, and even 20+ years ago hidden camera tech was solid, and it’s better now with the general miniaturization of everything. I did a quick search and $100-200 can get you a really solid hidden camera that blends into your outfit even up close. For under $50 you can get something that you wouldn’t notice from across the street.
I think it’s a better idea to just legally mandate a red light that’s on every time the camera is. Kinda like when Japan mandated shutter sounds after creeps started taking upskirts.
It’s more noticeable and visceral which is why people are up in arms about it. And rather than downplaying it why not use this as an opportunity to advocate for stringent privacy laws. Because I think you’ll find most people do care about the excessive surveillance, they are just not aware of it.
Just because it doesn’t solve something worse, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a step forward.
I’m still smelling something stinky about this, like maybe it’s pushed by Meta or Google (did they axe glasses?), but either way your points still stand. Conspiracy confirmed lol
Most people don’t care about police/government/corporate surveillance because that’s impersonal and doesn’t creep them out.
We did have fearmongering when cameraphones first became common in the 2000s, that perverts were going to be using them to secretly photograph people on the train etc. Presumably that did (and still does) happen somewhat, but its not a news story anymore.
PS: For example, “TubeCrush” (won’t give them traffic by linking) is a site for women and gay/bi men to post photos of attractive men on the train. (They don’t allow men to post photos of women, because that would be wrong, but the other way is apparently completely acceptable)
Because all those other cctvs and stuff are owned by companies that don’t want to get sued for posting people’s images non-consensually online. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal to be recorded in public or not. If someone can say a company caused harm because of said imagery, it’s going to be expensive.
Individual people have no problem at all posting these videos and commenting on people they capture, and people viewing that clip will do so as well.
As for the rest; out of sight, out of mind. But even then some take measures to avoid being tracked.
So people are upset about this, but have no trouble with the government tracking where they are and what they are doing 24x7x365.
If you are in public, you have no right to privacy and are free to be recorded. CCTVs, phones, glasses, whatever.
That has been the law for hundreds of years.
Why the beatup and ‘outrage’ against these glasses of all things? How many times a day does someone have their mobile phone pointed at you, and you have no idea if they are taking photos or videos?
What are you basng the back half of that statement on? The people complaining about these glasses are also the ones complaining about overreach and surveillance because they are the same thing.
Presumably for the same reason people have disliked other secret/hidden cameras in the past.
Exactly. They have it pointed at you. In other words, you are able to recognise that there is a camera there and that they may be filming. If someone walks into a public toilet or past a kindergarten wearing glasses, how would you know if they were recording? These glasses are designed to look like pretty standard consumer glasses and are difficult to recognise as smart devices from a distance. It also creates a problem where literally anyone wearing glasses in an area or situation where recording could be problematic becomes a suspect, even if they’re just wearing normal glasses and have done nothing wrong.
Ok, point taken, but there’s a difference between in public and public toilet. Alan Jones excepted lol.
Oh, you just mentioned something I hadn’t considered. Is it the normal glass wearers that are worried they might be tagged as pervs or sickos?
(I mean no disrespect to glass wearers - I use them myself)
Legally perhaps, but not in terms of wearing these glasses. As I said, they are designed to look like regular glasses (not just sunglasses), so they don’t look out of place in private and intimate spaces in the same way a smartphone can.
Search for ‘spy pen’, ‘spy keyfob’, ‘spy clock’, ‘spy camera’
“But glasses are different!” is being obtuse.
All these devices have been available for YEARS
I get your initial frustration regarding people’s general lax attitudes towards privacy and civil liberties, but pretending you can’t see any difference here is very silly. Glasses are normal in all situations of life; we have them with us and on us at all times. No one walks around holding pens, key fobs, clocks or any other kind of weird gotcha object you once saw in a James Bond film, outside of very specific situations where those items make sense. In addition, smart glasses are a mainstream tech item being designed, developed and pushed to market by big tech companies - they are far more capable and easy to use than your novelty spy items from Aliexpress.
Button cameras are a thing, and shirt pockets are basically made for pens. I was into spy tech as a kid, and even 20+ years ago hidden camera tech was solid, and it’s better now with the general miniaturization of everything. I did a quick search and $100-200 can get you a really solid hidden camera that blends into your outfit even up close. For under $50 you can get something that you wouldn’t notice from across the street.
I think it’s a better idea to just legally mandate a red light that’s on every time the camera is. Kinda like when Japan mandated shutter sounds after creeps started taking upskirts.
It’s more noticeable and visceral which is why people are up in arms about it. And rather than downplaying it why not use this as an opportunity to advocate for stringent privacy laws. Because I think you’ll find most people do care about the excessive surveillance, they are just not aware of it.
Good points.
Just because it doesn’t solve something worse, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a step forward.
I’m still smelling something stinky about this, like maybe it’s pushed by Meta or Google (did they axe glasses?), but either way your points still stand. Conspiracy confirmed lol
Most people don’t care about police/government/corporate surveillance because that’s impersonal and doesn’t creep them out.
We did have fearmongering when cameraphones first became common in the 2000s, that perverts were going to be using them to secretly photograph people on the train etc. Presumably that did (and still does) happen somewhat, but its not a news story anymore.
PS: For example, “TubeCrush” (won’t give them traffic by linking) is a site for women and gay/bi men to post photos of attractive men on the train. (They don’t allow men to post photos of women, because that would be wrong, but the other way is apparently completely acceptable)
Who can say what governments will do however when individuals are recording your activities, think pervert or criminal.
So, governments recording and doing whatever is OK, but individuals are automatically pervert or criminal?
😱
Not at all. Linking the 2 is a problem as it is a recipe for doing nothing. It makes the problem too big and links it to the law and order lobby.
Because all those other cctvs and stuff are owned by companies that don’t want to get sued for posting people’s images non-consensually online. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal to be recorded in public or not. If someone can say a company caused harm because of said imagery, it’s going to be expensive.
Individual people have no problem at all posting these videos and commenting on people they capture, and people viewing that clip will do so as well.
As for the rest; out of sight, out of mind. But even then some take measures to avoid being tracked.
Thank our lucky stars that corporations, governments and companies never do anything wrong and protect our privacy so well.