▲ 1152 ▼ Woman Calls Out Doctor Wearing Smart Glasses During Consultation Where She Had To Take Off Her Clothes: 'They Need To Be Banned' (www.fashiontimes.co.uk) submitted 1 week ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world 361 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] joe@lemmy.world -36 points 1 week ago (1 child) "Send data" meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said. Sued for what? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 20 points 1 week ago (1 child) The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google... etc.. are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn't been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -15 points 1 week ago (3 children) Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (1 child) If a doctor points their personal smartphone camera at a patient during an exam, as the doctor in the OP did with their camera, that is a massive issue. Why are you defending blatant violations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -16 points 1 week ago Quote where I defended it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm sorry, it wasn't a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you'd know. A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I'm guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn't a HIPAA violation. Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones). I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Honestly, they shouldn’t be. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 20 points 1 week ago (1 child) The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google... etc.. are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn't been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -15 points 1 week ago (3 children) Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (1 child) If a doctor points their personal smartphone camera at a patient during an exam, as the doctor in the OP did with their camera, that is a massive issue. Why are you defending blatant violations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -16 points 1 week ago Quote where I defended it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm sorry, it wasn't a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you'd know. A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I'm guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn't a HIPAA violation. Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones). I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Honestly, they shouldn’t be. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] joe@lemmy.world -15 points 1 week ago (3 children) Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (1 child) If a doctor points their personal smartphone camera at a patient during an exam, as the doctor in the OP did with their camera, that is a massive issue. Why are you defending blatant violations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -16 points 1 week ago Quote where I defended it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm sorry, it wasn't a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you'd know. A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I'm guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn't a HIPAA violation. Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones). I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent [–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Honestly, they shouldn’t be. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (1 child) If a doctor points their personal smartphone camera at a patient during an exam, as the doctor in the OP did with their camera, that is a massive issue. Why are you defending blatant violations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -16 points 1 week ago Quote where I defended it. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] joe@lemmy.world -16 points 1 week ago Quote where I defended it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] joe@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm sorry, it wasn't a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you'd know. A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I'm guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn't a HIPAA violation. Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones). I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] joe@lemmy.world -12 points 1 week ago* (1 child) I'm sorry, it wasn't a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you'd know. A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I'm guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn't a HIPAA violation. Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones). I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago (1 child) I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones). I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up. I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him. This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago Honestly, they shouldn’t be. permalink fedilink source parent