438
Calls in the UK to ban sex offenders from buying smart glasses (cybernews.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160

I love how they put a pic of "Epstein File Mark" in the article ;)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Well in that case they should be regulated with a licence or even a prescription, right? To add to this, disabled people in the example you're putting forward don't need internet connectivity or filming capabilities. I see your concern but when the price is the privacy of the entire planet, I can't accept your argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

    You think people should need a license to use technology like glasses and cameras. Listen to yourself!

    I don't know what kind of "anti" hole you fell into but you need to crawl back out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (5 children)

    Technology that trains AI for fascistic multi-billion dollar companies? Films, tracks, listens to private and potentially sensitive conversations? Yeah, probably.

    I'm comfortable in my hole. Maybe you should take the advice of a stranger on the internet instead and grow the fuck up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    You're confused: You assume that all cameras on glasses will always be controlled by fascists.

    Did it ever occur to you that someone might make their own glasses? Or that a company could make a set that works offline?

    If you ran things, such technology would never happen because it would be banned before it got out the door.

    But you'd be ok with that because you live in a hole, with perfect eyesight and zero foresight.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    I don't really understand how making them offline only makes them any less dangerous? The issue is that the camera is discrete enough that people wont notice theyre being recorded, not that the glasses can connect to the internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    So to you, the glasses are irrelevant. You just hate hidden cameras... Like police and various misbehaving corporations all over the world.

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

    I wouldn't say that police cameras are hidden, I assume you are referring to bodyworn cams? And I really don't know who are the misbehaving corpos you speak of. Not saying they don't exist, just that is super vague. Do you mean cctv for security? Because I dont know if i would call those hidden either?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago

    Police get caught committing crimes via hidden (or non-hidden, LOL) cameras all the time.

    The same is true for corporations (and plain old abusive bosses).

    Where I live, a company was caught making plans for illegal dumping (toxic waste) thanks to a hidden camera worn by a whistleblower.

    The most recent news about hidden cameras catching corporate misbehavior are mostly related to meat processing plants. In Texas, I believe they passed an unconstitutional law a few years ago banning people from recording (in public) near factory farms and meat processing plants.

    All this illegal/evil behavior was foiled thanks to hidden cameras.

    This is why I firmly believe in "one party" laws. Look that up if you don't know what it means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent