1009
DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses' (www.theregister.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
145 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

This is similar to the type of arguments made by those wanting increased surveillance with stuff like flock camera and ID online verification expansion. Pointing to the bad things in the world it helps prevent or track down that happens.

And pointing to the law to keep pushing what they are allowed to record and track.

Privacy and security has been a balancing act. And even examples of bad thing that happens I'm sure you can relate is the very common attempt at emotional appeal used by them.

Not denying your use case, but when it comes to surveillance they all seem to use the argument of safety.

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

    A person being able to record what they see and hear is different than a robot that records everything. I strongly disapprove of flock and online ID verification. Those aren't related to a person being able to make a personal record.

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

    I'm sure that's the argument Meta is making for their glasses.

    People aren't any better, since people are more likely to be recording specifically for the purposes of resharing and we do live in a social media age.

    And these devices as they gain popularity would be relaying information back to the companies anyways, so make the claims of it being local or private not matter when that wouldn't be the average wearable discrete tech that would gain mainstream popularity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    As I said I'm not arguing for Meta's glasses. They're ripe for abuse and I have no doubt there are people who would use them in inappropriate ways and in non-public places where a person otherwise expects some privacy.

    While there are valid reasons for recording things both in public and private, without a doubt the ability to secretly record video will be abused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Whether its meta or not, discrete wearable video recording is not something I am in favor of. Like the recent LG spyware installing on people's Windows PC shows, many tech companies aren't in the business of being privacy respecting in the products they offer. It's usually those companies that gain market share.

    And individuals with how quick they are to live stream and share every picture and video voluntarily to social media sites doesn't much lend to responsible use either. At least those people aren't usually hiding that they are recording.

    When it comes to legal audio wiretapping those are already sufficient in places where it is legal to be used in cases like yours. So I don't much see a need to further extend hidden audio recordings to also include hidden video recordings with wearables. Cases where video is also needed seem more like very specific niche cases involving investigations, so to shift it to being an every day casual accessory I dont see as necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent