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

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

"Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you're not a sex offender".

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.

    You can't claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you're stood in the same room with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do

    its meta

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    That's an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn't go that far.

    Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They're acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.

    However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn't limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn't matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people's information with Meta.

    Meta isn't breaking privacy laws - you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)

    I know it's a hot-take... But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (13 children)

    This isn't wise for the sole reason that they really are a great benefit to the visually impaired.

    Right now the tech is super useful, being able to read small text out loud and differentiate similar objects that certain conditions make difficult. However, the tech has the potential to do so much more.

    Banning it now would be like slapping a whole lot of disabled people in the face.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    They do not need to have hidden cameras to work as an aid. The push to make the cameras and microphones hidden is the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Who's pushing to make them hidden? If you want hidden cameras there's thousands of vastly superior options than thick, ugly, obvious glasses.

    Go search AliExpress right now for "hidden camera". Your mind will be blown.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago*

    I think it’s reasonable if sight impaired people want to appear inconspicuous. You say this is “hiding” the glasses but do you expect them to walk around with a GoPro strapped to a helmet so they can have street signs read to them?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 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.

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

    Just ban them for everyone. Pervert glasses have no legitimate use.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Tbh, I would love an appropriate pair. I have issues with memory, particularly regarding faces. A set of smart glasses would be an almost perfect aid to me.

    Unfortunately, I don't trust any of the manufacturers not to abuse the hell out of all the data they generate. I'm also fully aware of the idiots abusing them, and ruining things for everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 3 weeks ago

    With smart glasses, everyone's a sex offender.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    Just ban the sales of pervert glasses, period.

    It'll accomplish the same thing, but be a lot easier legally.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 weeks ago

    But that's their whole demographic.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Too complicated, and requires bureaucracy to work.

    Just ban that crap in public spaces.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    I'd be on board if "Sex offender" only included the people that everyone seems to think it includes. However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk, people who turned to prostitution when they fell on hard times, and children who were victims themselves.

    Only thing that will make both sides happy is banning them entirely, which I am 100% in favor of

    (Seriously, though, look up what gets classed as a sexual offence in your area. It's not just child molestation, and sexual assault.)

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    A completely unenforceable idea driven by moral panic. We're already seeing plenty of cheap ones on temu, and other more covert types of cameras have been available for years. (Look up pen cameras on Amazon, you'll look at anyone with a pen in their shirt pocket very differently for the rest of your life)

    Not to mention there's already open source 3d printed smart glasses. Which means this would no doubt lead to calls for ID checks to buy a 3d printer.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

    In a complete assault on right to self repair, several states are already trying to force 3d printers to validate what they're printing with some database. They used guns as the Trojan horse but everyone knew it wouldn't stay there and soon ip checks would be coming

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago
    [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    Uh oh, Mark's about to lose his glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    They gonna ban the usage in cinemas, then super markets, then the gyms, then they gonna ban guys to buy them, ban dogs to buy them, ban...

    They gonna "ban" everything else but the glasses selling itself... Can't touch big corpos you know...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago

    Good thing they won't be able to buy used.

    /S

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Buying and using, if it should make sense.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    But then they won't have any customers.

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 2 weeks ago
    [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Can't ever be enforced until the largest list of the most depraved sex offenders on the planet can be "permabanned"

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    I would agree only if the responsibility to not carry smart glasses is on the offender only, so vendors wouldn't have to check their ID, but the perp could be arrested and charged for having them.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›