895
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
895 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
87124 readers
3829 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. There is zero way for those glasses to remain HIPAA-compliant, because everything you do is uploaded to Meta’s servers.
I remember a bunch of DateLine exposeés about doctors who used hidden cameras to record patients.
What does it matter if that camera was sold by Facebook?
How about we accept neither as being appropriate.
That’s my point: Neither are and yet this doctor wasn’t arrested over this like if he had a different hidden camera
its invading privacy. a Patient can use hidden camera,often times doctors/ other employee makes condescending comments of patients while they are under anesthesia about the patients.
Because if a doctor puts up a hidden camera only the doctor (and anyone they might personally share the footage with) can see it. With those glasses everything goes through Meta's servers and we don't know who has access to the footage.
So is say the scope of the invasion of privacy is the difference.
Every slopper should just be killed. They are already p-zombie puppet terminals for some silicon valley billionaire, so its only biologically murder.