Yes, dipshits like that should be banned from the medical profession.
That seems like a HIPAA violation because it’s unknown eyes and ears in the exam room.
They should look like this
https://interfacemuseum.com/exhibits/private-eye/
And instead of recording, they should remind doctors of the basics that they often forget. Two legs, one heart, etc… (I’ve dealt with moron doctors)
It is really upsetting that we can’t get actually good “smart glasses”. Like, glasses that have a little screen projected on the lenses and can do searches and stuff for you on the fly, or display text like a script or something, or watch a video, or see your music playlist…
Why does everyone trying to make “smart glasses” feel compelled to include a fucking hidden camera?? And now it’s even worse with the AI riddle surveillance state we are living in. I won’t even be a little surprised to find out that Meta’s pervert glasses are being co-opted by Flock to add even more cameras to their “safety” network…
Those do exist. They’re just expensive. Look up the Even Realities G2 smart glasses. They have a monochrome heads up display, conversation analysis, live translate, notifications from your phone, time, date ect. Oh, and there is no camera on them by design (the developers understand and acknowledge that a camera is a huge privacy risk). They also have an open SDK and developer tools so that you can make your own apps for them. They’re kind of like real life E.D.I.T.H. glasses.
I just wish they had “headphones”/audio out.
Yeah, it’s unfortunate but until we get robust privacy laws (which won’t happen) none of this shit can ever be trusted. Anyone arguing to put more cameras and microphones into our lives at this point should be met with an ass beating. If our politicians were worth anything those laws would have been in place before it ever got this far. Instead they’re all bought and paid for.
Yeah it’s a shame, I’d be up for some augmented reality. Except it would mostly be ads, and too many people can’t be trusted not to be pervy with the cameras.
For me, the hypothetical appeal of Smart Glasses would be to identify the things in my environment and point them out. That requires a camera. I’m not remotely interested in having augmented reality glasses enough to give a corporation my data like that.
I can’t believe that image in the thumbnail came from official Meta marketing. I have to imagine that Jared the Subway guy didn’t make the cut because he didn’t look creepy enough.
Lets not forget that this product is marketed towards the type of male that unironically identifies with Patrick Bateman.
The confrontation, shared in a video that has circulated on Reddit, centres on a simple but uncomfortable question: should a doctor be wearing glasses with a built-in camera while examining a patient in an intimate clinical setting?
I hate it when articles do this. Firstly, answer is NO. secondly there’s nothing uncomfortable about the question itself because answer is a NO, third there’s no need to frame a clear violation of privacy as a question. If it’s not acceptable to pull out a phone and start recording in that situation, then it’s clearly not acceptable to wear those glasses.
“Is genocide OK if after you sweep away all those no-good ‘Undesireables’ you get to build a seaside villa and resort AND you now get to pump oil out of the ground from where those peoples’ homes once were? …Some experts say YES! And we agree! Here’s why…”
-articles like these
Movie trailer voice;
This hour, a new sensation will sweep across the globe, the creators of “top 10 lists” return to ask the questions that nobody else will in “Articles Like These”, staring A.L. Clanker (coming soon to screens near you).
If the glasses were hipaa compliant, they could be used as a medical tool, but I would never trust Zuck’s glasses to be like that.
Removed by mod
They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.
Check that man’s hdd for sure
Check that man’s hhd for sure
I know this is nitpicky and I’m sorry but… “hdd” not “hhd”. But probably in 2026 its an ssd anyway.
Fair, typo and I’ll fix
…its an ssd anyway.
It depends on how much video he has. HDDs arent cheap but SSDs are expensive and don’t add much in a data archiving scenerio.
Actually, we are probably both wrong and it’s the nand flash on his phone. The kind of tool bag buying meta pervert glasses probably isn’t actually a big techie…
She should have slapped those glasses off his face. Legally speaking it should be fine to punch anyone wearing pervert glasses in the face.
9 out of 10 doctors choose not to wear pervert-glasses.
But that one guy…
“9 out of 10 dentists recommend not smashing your teeth so I cant upcharge you for more replacement teeth… But that one guy… IM that one guy! Mwahahaha! Gimme yohr money!”
do you think there are only 10 doctors in the world?
Is this sarcasm?
Can’t you tell?
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
innocemt until proven guilty. The only time they can reveal the person’s name aand face is if theyre convicted of something AND theyre an adult.
Also a bonus if he does get convicted of this and his name and face gets revealed is that other people who recognize his name and face and who have ALSO been his victims can also then come forward and put additional charges on him. And who knows maybe he has so many victims itll be like a liife sentence when everyone finishes dumping more and more charges onto him.
Humans have an a amazing ability to be idiotic so you cant always blame with malice what can be explained by idiocracy…but iif he is malicious? Ya throw the book at him. And more.
Or actual journalism.
If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.Nah that would be illegal
Do you know what slander is?
Do you know what habeous corpus is?
Would you like to be arrested and not given the same rights and protections?
Maybe you should get arrested by ICE and see what its like.
There are two parts to this:
- Ethics, a doctor would be expected to know better,
- Reality, where eventually such things will just stop being 100% percent visible, and thus will happen again and again with impunity.
So, first, doctors shouldn’t do that, second, ban or not, this will be happening all around us, no exit.
Eventually people will just have to get used to the idea of not caring about/sexualizing nudity.
As always, we’ll get downvoted by the “Free the nipple! … No we didn’t actually mean it!” crowd.
Somehow people sharing your point of view in my experience are mostly men and mostly imagine it as lots of handsome young-looking people walking around in half-transparent elastic body suits in some future where everyone is “fixed” to be fit and look nice. And in that kind of sci-fi books somehow women are prevalent among characters, but the leading ones are men.
You get the general idea, yes?
I’m a very social awkward person, but honestly that worldview hints you should get out more. Again, I should follow my own advice, but.
That’s a weird world view I don’t share, but feel free to convince yourself that i do if it makes you feel better.
that’s what a perv would say
So you just throw privacy out the window with the baby?
Are you american?
Do you know what the fourth amendment is, of course not?
Oh hi there keyboard warrior.
No, none of those, but i wouldn’t expect you to understand reality.
Have a nice day, bye.Someone didn’t take their meds today. Have the day you voted for.
Walk outside completely naked right now then if its not such a big deal. Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is.
In some countries you can.
Thank you for missing the point.
Bye
My PCP wears Bluetooth headphones so that his notes are transcribed by his nurse. He always asks me if this is ok, and the device he wears is obviously visible. I can’t imagine a world where your doctor would secretly spy on you. Fuck this noise.
It’s 2026. His nurse is probably ChatGPT. I’ve straight up been asked if I was okay with my appt being transcribed by AI. Icky…
That is one of the legitimate uses. Unfortunately it’s marred by the AI companies’ complete lack of trustworthiness when it comes to data privacy and security. You can’t know for certain they aren’t just wrapping your personal medical notes into their ever growing store of training data.
It’s also not hipaa compliant. Any doctors doing this are in for a bad time sooner or later.
The problem is that these doctors might not even know that the AI’s are spying on them. We don’t have enough legislative protection for our private data so they could sign up for these things and be under the impression that their data is secure meanwhile these AI companies are siphoning that data into their training models without telling them. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.
That’s like the least offensive use of AI as well. I’m perfectly fine with voice transcription that’s hardly even an AI
I hate it. I recently went through a formal diagnosis process with a psychiatrist. And he used AI transcription. It was clear from the notes that it was mostly surface-level details. The notes included things I mentioned, but lacked depth and synthesis. The point of requiring doctors to write down notes is not just for record-keeping. The synthesis step is essential. And you completely lose that with an AI transcriber. Instead of summarizing with a clinical synthesis in mind, it just blindly copies down surface-level details. You end up with a long and detailed but extremely vapid session record.
No, because it’s wrong just enough to slip errors into your medical report that seem plausible, but can be dangerously wrong.
You can and should say no to AI writing anything into your medical report.
People get lazy and don’t review things as carefully when they see it’s usually correct, and you don’t always get the opportunity to read all the notes of your medical report yourself.
Voice transcription predates AI. I remember using a piece of software called dragon back in 2010 to transcribe my dissertation.
remimds me of those awful youtube ai transcriptions
Doctors aren’t writing their notes either way, it’s sent to the Philippines or it’s sent to ai. Why would they bother writing themselves when they can see another patient in that time and double their income.
Dunno where that leaves is though, rage at the for profit health industry I guess :/
And either way the practice management software they use is mining those notes to advertise https://www.magentus.com/health-informatics/data-management-services/?r=a - highly regulated but there’s always cowboys
Doctors aren’t writing their notes either way
This is far from a universal truth. While it’s true that local professional medical transcriptionists are much rarer today than they were 20 years ago as a lot of doctors started using software (I remember when “Dragon: Naturally Speaking” really hit the stage everyone thought it would be revolutionary), in my experience there are a lot less doctors even using transcription these days. Some of the old timers still do since they never really bothered to learn to type, but a lot of them just type into a computer in the exam room with patients.
Maybe that’s a regional thing, I don’t know, but it is definitely the norm in my part of the world.
At least a human can learn and understand when there’s logical inconsistencies.
I’d much rather a call center in the Philippines does it than a computer that has no idea what the context is.
An in person scribe is actually best, cause there’s a second set of eyes on the information, and they can ask clarifying questions at the time of the appointment. That’s how my doc does it.
Hey now, don’t shoot the messenger, I was just grounding the conversation in the reality of how I’ve seen doctors typically work (in Australia).
But …your doc has an In person scribe? That sounds pretty great! It is another arrow in the side of the for profit medical industry that not everyone has access to this level of service.
Don’t think they’re call centers, docs just record in a little recorder and send it to transcription services, it’s not live or anything. They don’t get more context than the recording itself…
Every doctor I’ve been to for the past couple years records your appointment to transcribe it with AI. Good luck to people who have a problem with this.
The tool that tried this is a monster, but I do feel sort of bad for the stock image photo models that get associated with the acts of these monsters. Like the dude in the photo could be totally chill, but is presented as though he is the pervert in the story.
That is model wearing them for Ray-Ban. He knows what he signed up for.
Does he, though? The modeling session would have been before they were released and they don’t exactly tell their models the full technical details of the stuff they make them wear.
I can totally understand the reason to capture video and conversation during a medical consultation. As someone who has to see a dermatologist from time to time, I’ve had pictures taken.
The proper protocol is to get consent first, before donning the glasses or pulling out the camera.
And I bet that the perv glasses are not the best option for capturing data for medical analysis.
Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers.
Insane to even think this is remotely okay.
ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed
edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a.
The HIPAA rules are full of “Observe best practices” and “Take reasonable precautions” terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason.
They’ll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it’s not until there’s a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone’s records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I’ve been.
Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I’d give it 70:30 because it’s a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen.
Nah, something like this, they’d have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit.
Yeah, you’d think that all recordings would have to be local…and not on the cloud.
Most likely they’ve outsourced their infrastructure anyway…
