I can honestly put up with a lot, especially in a doctor’s office. Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass. I would walk out if my doctor came in with those glasses. I will go and find a new doctor. There is no way I am okay with a personal camera in that exam room.
It’s not even a personal camera. The footage is uploaded to Facebook where they have humans categorize and tag it.
[bums], [boobs], [other]
[Hot dog] [Not hot dog]
Speaking of abusive people…
and it also trains thier shitty AI.
I will go and find a new doctor.
right after I punch Dr. M. Olester in the face.
Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass.
Psssshhhhhh! Prude!
Btw, I’m not defending these doctors with the glasses. Fuck that shit! That should absolutely be banned.
I’m just saying anal is awesome! You’re missing out.
don’t stop there, call the fucking regulatory agencies for the hospital and the doc. the hospital is obviously at enormous risk for the liability this moron is opening up and probably would like to fire him before the lawsuits land on them.
I totally get what you’re saying.
However, it is kind of funny (interesting?) that people will trust that there isn’t a hidden camera in the exam room without question, but mistrust someone who has a camera openly displayed, but off, in the exam room. As if the reminder that cameras exist is what negates that trust, not the risk of being recorded.
This is more of a philosophical musing than a defense of wearing a camera into an exam room.
Without evidence, the idea that there’s a hidden camera in the exam room is just paranoid speculation. By contrast, this was an actual visible camera in the exam room, and a camera that was obviously the doctor’s own personal device. It makes sense to worry more about the camera you know is real.
It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?
the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved…
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
They still send data when they’re not recording. In either case, the doctor needs to be sued.
“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.
Sued for what?
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
That’s the thing though, it’s multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don’t just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of “accidental” system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.
So, now you have to trust:
-
That the person is not intentionally recording you.
-
That they are not unintentionally recording you.
(Because if a camera is on, and eventually connected to the Internet, well… I should not have to explain how that can be an issue in this forum at least. We now have to trust the users tech literacy, and security diligence.)
I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.
I can tell you as a tech literate person in healthcare… That I am in the minority of security conscious and knowledgeable users of said technology.
I expect HIPPA violations of unparalleled proportion from this new tech.
People are already terrible at security, and now they have even more information recording methods to mess up.
HIPAA :p
Ain’t no hippa hippo here
So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.
what does that even mean? the whole point of the tech industry is for tech-literate people to work to provide products and services to the broadly tech-illiterate public. the goal of a tech product is to be used with as little tech-literacy as possible. why would you assume that someone is highly tech-literate just because they use the product of a tech company?
I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?
I want to believe you’re earnest and not some trolling chud here to promote the tech.
the ratios speak for themselves I guess.
-
It does come down to trust, and if you walk into my doctor’s visit with a camera strapped to your face, you’ve lost mine. Doesn’t matter if it’s on or not. I distrust your descion-making abilities on a fundamental level. Plus, if they’re the kind of person who would try and film someone without them knowing, they’re also the kind of person to lie about it being off. But honestly, they might not even be trying to record surreptitiously, they might do it on accident. I’ve got a buddy who worked in IT customer support for a medical device company and would tell us horror stories, the amount of American doctors who have absolutely no fucking clue how basic technology works is staggering. Like truly scary, considering how highly we regard them and their presumed intelligence.
The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?
If your proctologist had an OnlyFans-branded go-pro strapped to their head, would you drop trou and bend over?
That’s because there is generally implicit trust that there is no hidden cameras. The open display of a camera effectively destroys that trust. If everyone was always suspicious of there being hidden cameras everywhere, functioning in society would be pretty difficult.
Sure, but if a person doesn’t trust their doctor to have a camera in their possession in the room, why would they trust that same doctor not to have one hidden?
That’s what I’m saying. They have that trust and the visible camera would destroy it in an instant because it’s expected to be private. You can’t expect people to assume that there will be something that shouldn’t be there and validate that fact.
Does it matter whether the camera is on or off?
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.
From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that’s on their face, then you can’t rule out that they’d do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.
At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn’t come off suggesting otherwise.
Yes, I totally understand the logic. It’s just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:
- A hidden camera is more dangerous for the victim because it is less risky for the creep/abuser.
- You will not reasonably believe that a doctor will have a hidden camera inside his office.
- A camera exposed to the naked eye is less dangerous for the victim because it is more risky for the creep/abuser.
- The abuser is unlikely to take that risk because he could lose too much, much more than he would gain.
- So it is reasonable not to believe that your doctor will record or photograph you with a camera exposed to the naked eye since it is inherently riskier for the creep, and it is not reasonable to believe otherwise.
Although, the problem here then shifts to the hardware itself. Like, since these lenses were probably closed source and proprietary hardware, and their software as well, then you don’t have a way to prove that if you turn off the camera on said lens (either via the software kill-switch or via the hardware kill-switch) it is actually turning off, or just appears to turn off when it is actually still on but disguised as being turned off. And taking into account that there are precedents of devices doing this (a particularly famous case was that of a smart TV that even when you turned it off, it was not really off, but in a false shutdown, a very low power state where the screen was off, but the core and some telemetry processes, and the microphone, were still running and, thus, recording and sending everything that was recorded to their servers). So the only rational position, at least from a Game Theory point of view, is to assume that every device that is both closed source and closed hardware, that is not Free, Libre and Open Source Software, and Libre and Open Source and Schematics Hardware (yeah, even releasing their schematics), does the same thing.
You are not understanding the trust issue.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
As others have said, trust is broken.
These hypothetical doctors almost certainly have a smartphone with them every time they enter the room. Why doesn’t that trigger this loss of trust effect? That can certainly (and arguably more easily) secretly record audio and video.
I just thought it was interesting.
You are not understanding the trust issue.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
As others have said, trust is broken.
If you’d actually read the comment you’d see they already answered this question
Well, you see, I need my hidden wearable camera to detect other hidden cameras…
Having a hidden camera in a room would be illegal. The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%. Just to survive, people have to be able to trust in something rather than question every single aspect, and trusting that your medical office isn’t illegally wired to record you secretly is a safe bet. However, when a dumbass walks in with their personal gear that is designed to record and save that recording into a cloud is not even remotely acceptable, especially when that cloud is Meta.
Comparing the two like the hidden camera is a common thing is some major tinfoil hat shit.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.
How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.
Because hidden cameras aren’t common and given the legality of the situation, the risk to any medical professional to try and sneak in and use a hidden camera is extremely high. It’s not impossible, it’s just extremely unlikely. There are many many things in life that can be trusted because the odds are extremely favorable, and trusting that there aren’t hidden cameras in a doctor’s office is one of them.
Again, to not trust this reality is conspiracy level insanity. If you wanted, you can go in and sweep a medical room for hidden cameras if you’re so insecure that that’s what’s needed for piece of mind, but everyone will think you’re loony tunes.
What do you think of when you see the phrase “hidden camera” and why doesn’t that include a concealed phone?
Did I ever say it doesn’t include concealed phones? Do you sweep for hidden cameras, including concealed phones everytime you go to the doctor?
Again, it has happened, but when it’s single digit instances out of thousands or millions of doctors, that’s almost never.
You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.
No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.
Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.
It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”
It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%
You can’t genuinely believe this, can you? If a person is a creep who wants to record people in private situations without their consent, there’s a much higher than 0% chance.
Yes, I and damn near everyone else believes it. Do you sweep for cameras whenever you go to the doctor? What about public restrooms? If there is a creep doctor that is willing to risk everything for a peep, yes, it’s possible. How many out of the millions of doctors out there do you think have put a hidden camera in their office? If it’s less than 1 in 100, then that is near 0%.
Well the chances of a doctor wearing meta raybans is near 0%, so I guess this doesn’t happen and we can move on.
I never expected you to understand this conversation, because you’ve shown you’ve got the critical thinking skills of a baby. Still you surprise me.
a camera openly displayed, but off,
I know enough about technology and big tech companies to be completely unwilling to believe that any device claiming to be “off” or even just to have some feature “off” can be trusted not to be collecting data anyway, at least in certain situations. They have completely and utterly destroyed that trust, and are at this very moment still dancing gleefully on its corpse. It doesn’t really make any sense for them to act surprised when we refuse to believe a company like Meta will take anyone’s privacy seriously.
That’s why regulations and standards need to be put in place for this emerging technology.
As you said, no one should be trusting meta for anything, especially privacy. That’s why physically covered cameras with foolproof hardware methods showing when the uncovered cameras are recording is needed.
It’s neither funny nor interesting. Hope that helps
It’s because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.
but off,
there’s an entire creepy industry to disable the lights.
https://stealthspecs.com/product/send-in-modification-service-disable-led-on-meta-glasses/
https://www.reddit.com/r/RayBanStories/comments/s9bb2i/blocking_led_light_when_recording/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCU4RtorMY
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/meta-ai-glasses-record-without-warning-light/
Yeh I know, so clearly that way of doing it isn’t sufficient.
?
not sure what you’re saying; there’s multiple different bypasses. as long as creeps can record what they see without someone’s consent to be recorded, they’ll be creep glasses.
So much the same as phones? Are phones “creep phones”?
There are multiple ways to prevent this, they just haven’t implemented any of them yet because the pushback hasn’t been loud enough, nor has anything been legislated.
PHONES DON’T RECORD WHERE YOU LOOK.
Phones are visible! they don’t look like spectacles. Why do I have to explain this?
I suspect you’re just being duplicitous, certainly you’ve never tried to put your phone on your face or answer the glasses when you hear a ringtone.
Stop acting stupid.
Now you’re trying to make a distinction between recording and recording exactly from your PoV? Why? Why does that make any difference?
Glasses are visible, and what I’ve been saying is that there just needs to be legislation and standards around making it obvious when smart glasses are recording.
They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.
Check that man’s hdd for sure
Check that man’s hhd for sure
I know this is nitpicky and I’m sorry but… “hdd” not “hhd”. But probably in 2026 its an ssd anyway.
…its an ssd anyway.
It depends on how much video he has. HDDs arent cheap but SSDs are expensive and don’t add much in a data archiving scenerio.
Actually, we are probably both wrong and it’s the nand flash on his phone. The kind of tool bag buying meta pervert glasses probably isn’t actually a big techie…
Fair, typo and I’ll fix
I can totally understand the reason to capture video and conversation during a medical consultation. As someone who has to see a dermatologist from time to time, I’ve had pictures taken.
The proper protocol is to get consent first, before donning the glasses or pulling out the camera.
And I bet that the perv glasses are not the best option for capturing data for medical analysis.
Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers.
Insane to even think this is remotely okay.
ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed
edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a.
The UK has the Data Processing Act of 2018 and this would violate that law as well. It’s probably stricter because it includes the GDPR by reference.
Yeah, you’d think that all recordings would have to be local…and not on the cloud.
Most likely they’ve outsourced their infrastructure anyway…
Smart glasses are COOL! Why are you so BUTTHURT about Docturs and Social Media giants with DISTURBING and NONEXISTANT Privacy Practices seeing your PRIVATE NAKED VIDEOS? Stupid LIBTARDS!
-People in this Thread!
so fucking sick and tired of the pervert glasses boosters.
these things belong on people with visual difficulty, the visual description service should be free to them, and the devices restricted otherwise. it’s fucking gross that so many people think ‘you have no reasonable expectation to privacy in the public’ == creep cameras are cool.
fyi, there are laws in most states against voyeurism - in my state that creep behavior is a felony.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
so fucking sick of the creepglass fanboys
I could use them to document, diy content creators would get some great close up work details …hell even the OG google glasses are in wide use in warehouse logistics for their huds. There are use applications. But they’re not advertising for that. They’re advertising for abuse. And they’re getting that demographic
do whatever you want with other consenting adults in the privacy of your home.
No one would say shit.
It’s the upskirt downshirt creepshot assholes, it’s the pick up artists and racist harrasment dickheads that should be beaten in the fucking street.
I feel bad for the people with vision impairment that these could genuinely help, but instead of making an accessibility tool, meta’s chosen to make a privacy invasion tool that has some great accessibility uses, then try to use that as cover for the creeps.
it’s all so fucking on point for the creepshow that is meta
the fucking foundation myth is wanting to stalk women so definitely on par
Lemmy unfortunately does have a chronic sexism problem.
also I suspect the shill bots have started to find their way over here too.
eh… there are sexist assholes everywhere.
I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as reddit was. but that’s my own experience, ymmv.
You do know these glasses have a little light that turns on when filming right?
The issue is that techs have been drilling these lights and “turning them off” for these perverts and that should be made into a severe FELONY.
Also if you are found with these glasses and the light is drilled out then you should face the same jail time.
you do realize the light can be blocked by 1 cent worth of electrical tape? that there are tutorials online showing how to block just the light using a hole punch?
there’s always going to be ways to circumvent the light. I say restrict the devices to the visually impaired. everyone else can use a fucking camera.
Strong disagree. Smart glasses will be one of the biggest tech advances in the next decade or 2 for the normal person, and I’m here for it. The awesome things that they will unlock the ability to do are almost unlimited.
There are a million cheap, easy to get and conceal cameras that perverts have access to. There are already laws around where and when and what you can record. Smart glasses don’t make anything any easier for perverts.
All that’s needed is a standard to be developed on how to physically cover the camera by default, and make it extremely obvious when the camera is not covered, even if it’s not recording. Shouldn’t be hard technically.
You don’t care that people will find you creepy?
Like, I get it if you think you’d never do awful things, sure, but being perceived as someone in that same crowd?
Huh
Also, equating these to a phone camera, a pen camera or other device is specious as shit. ‘spy cams’ often have terrible resolution; these things do not. LOL get a minox it’s the same. derp.
also, none of your concealable cameras are RUNNING FUCKIN FACIAL RECOGNITION OR OTHER AI GARBAGE they’re certain to make for these shitspecs.
re: a standard - if it wasn’t hard technically to do so, why do you think they neglected to do it?
because the creeps who will buy these don’t want that shit.
I wouldn’t be wearing them anywhere that would be considered “creepy” to wear them, and as a middle aged heavily tattooed metal fan I’m long past caring what other people think haha.
I’m not planning on buying any yet either - the tech that I’m waiting for isn’t there yet. I want all the AR stuff, maps, live translations, the ability to look at something and get info about it, do price comparisons, get instructions, etc. basically the next iteration of Microsoft’s HoloLens or Apples Vision Pro, but in normal glasses. By then the large majority of the population will have gotten over this “only perverts wear them” thing, which is quite frankly silly anyway.
The resolution of creep cams is irrelevant really (I’m sure there are many 1080p and 4K ones though), since the fact that it’s being recorded at all is the issue. Walking around with smart glasses on at least makes it obvious that you could be going to record.
As for the standard - it won’t be up to the manufacturers eventually. It’ll be regulated. I’m all for that. The EU commission will do something about it soon, though at the same time they’ll probably mandate all footage and data gets sent to law enforcement and governments since they seem to tick-tock between good and horrible actions haha
Look up the Rokid smart glasses. They’re pretty close to what you’re describing. Camera, AI assistant, live translations in over 80 different languages, auto transcribe, monochrome heads up display, and they look like normal glasses. They’re surprisingly lightweight for the amount of technology that’s in them.
A little pre warning though, they start at $599. There is also the Even Realities G1 smart glasses which are a little cheaper and do most of the same stuff, but there is no camera on them.
large majority of the population will have gotten over this “only perverts wear them” thing, which is quite frankly silly anyway.
sure thing buddy.
imho the people who find these creepy af is only going to grow as awareness of them grows.
but you do you.
People felt the same way about phone cameras at one stage. You might not be old enough to remember, or might not have even been born.
Phones in Japan had to be made so you couldn’t disable the shutter sound when taking a photo.
One thing I’ve really learned over the years is that a huge percentage of the population has virtually no ability to think ahead even a few years in terms of tech, let alone long term. I guarantee you that smart glasses are going to be as ubiquitous as smart phones and smart watches in a decade or 2. They are the natural evolution of the smartphone, or as an everyday wearable.
dude, I’ve been using phones since they had dials. one place I lived, we had a party line shared with 3 neighbors.
it’s not the same thing at all. Stop acting like phones and EYEWEAR are the same. People have no reasonable expectation if you’re holding a phone to their face that they aren’t being recorded. Looking at your silly stupid mug while serving your food or walking by isn’t consenting to be recorded.
One thing I’ve really learned over the years is that a huge percentage of the population has virtually no ability to think ahead even a few years in terms of tech,
this is rich, considering how out of touch you are on this subject.
That’s the same logic like “there’s no point in gun control, people can use knives”. People don’t like to be recorded without their knowledge and consent, whether you use smart glasses or other cameras.
Yes, people use these smart glasses for stuff that’s not creepy and invading people’s privacy - I’ve seen people use them for recipe videos and such. Cool. You can also achieve the same with other cameras. That’s really not an argument to normalise them in public or private settings involving other people who haven’t consented to it.
It’s not at all like that, because guns and knives are different and give different results. You can buy any number of “spycam” glasses online whenever you want.
Laws already exist around using them in private settings. They also exist around using them in public settings too - you have no expectation of privacy in public, because you’re in public. You can’t stop someone taking your photo while you’re walking down the street.
Every damned thread about them hurr huu but what about smartfonez as if some turd whipping out their smartphone to film someone wasn’t such an acknowleged shit move it’s a tv trope.
The confrontation, shared in a video that has circulated on Reddit, centres on a simple but uncomfortable question: should a doctor be wearing glasses with a built-in camera while examining a patient in an intimate clinical setting?
I hate it when articles do this. Firstly, answer is NO. secondly there’s nothing uncomfortable about the question itself because answer is a NO, third there’s no need to frame a clear violation of privacy as a question. If it’s not acceptable to pull out a phone and start recording in that situation, then it’s clearly not acceptable to wear those glasses.
“Is genocide OK if after you sweep away all those no-good ‘Undesireables’ you get to build a seaside villa and resort AND you now get to pump oil out of the ground from where those peoples’ homes once were? …Some experts say YES! And we agree! Here’s why…”
-articles like these
Movie trailer voice;
This hour, a new sensation will sweep across the globe, the creators of “top 10 lists” return to ask the questions that nobody else will in “Articles Like These”, staring A.L. Clanker (coming soon to screens near you).
If true he should lose license.
They shouldn’t be allowed in a work place setting withought prior acknowledgement and consent.
I’ll do you one better, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere without prior acknowledgement and consent
well iif youre out in the miiddle of the Sahara desert or the alaskan desert…
(But yes in public with otherr humans , you should be forced to obtain consent first before you usee such thing)
It is really upsetting that we can’t get actually good “smart glasses”. Like, glasses that have a little screen projected on the lenses and can do searches and stuff for you on the fly, or display text like a script or something, or watch a video, or see your music playlist…
Why does everyone trying to make “smart glasses” feel compelled to include a fucking hidden camera?? And now it’s even worse with the AI riddle surveillance state we are living in. I won’t even be a little surprised to find out that Meta’s pervert glasses are being co-opted by Flock to add even more cameras to their “safety” network…
Those do exist. They’re just expensive. Look up the Even Realities G2 smart glasses. They have a monochrome heads up display, conversation analysis, live translate, notifications from your phone, time, date ect. Oh, and there is no camera on them by design (the developers understand and acknowledge that a camera is a huge privacy risk). They also have an open SDK and developer tools so that you can make your own apps for them. They’re kind of like real life E.D.I.T.H. glasses.
Do you know if the microphone can be disabled? Or the features that use it? Basically I’d want glasses like these that primarily react to inputs I make on my phone or show things the phone can figure out based on my location etc. I’d want to be 100% certain no audio is being recorded or even uploaded to a translation service.
The microphone can’t be disabled unfortunately. The developers claim that all audio recordings are deleted immediately after the glasses provide a response, however their privacy policy does mention that some necessary personal data may be processed by third parties in countries like China, Japan, and the U.S.
Their privacy policy doesn’t actually say who has access to user data.
So you want a screen in front of your eyes, that you need to pull out your other screen to control?
I just wish they had “headphones”/audio out.
I want smart glasses like a smart watch: a quick glance to see a message, workout data, maybe GPS directions, that’s about it.
No camera needed.
Why? None of that would improve my life in any way.
Well since you’re the only person that matters, let’s do things your way.
Thank you
People travel, which can make access to good screens difficult (think flights, busses).
Such glasses are not cheap, but provide virtually unlimited screen space wherever you are.Jesus christ, take a fucking break from your God damn screen.
Yeah it’s a shame, I’d be up for some augmented reality. Except it would mostly be ads, and too many people can’t be trusted not to be pervy with the cameras.
My PCP wears Bluetooth headphones so that his notes are transcribed by his nurse. He always asks me if this is ok, and the device he wears is obviously visible. I can’t imagine a world where your doctor would secretly spy on you. Fuck this noise.
Every doctor I’ve been to for the past couple years records your appointment to transcribe it with AI. Good luck to people who have a problem with this.
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
Or actual journalism.
If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.Do you know what slander is?
Do you know what habeous corpus is?
Would you like to be arrested and not given the same rights and protections?
Maybe you should get arrested by ICE and see what its like.
Nah that would be illegal
innocemt until proven guilty. The only time they can reveal the person’s name aand face is if theyre convicted of something AND theyre an adult.
Also a bonus if he does get convicted of this and his name and face gets revealed is that other people who recognize his name and face and who have ALSO been his victims can also then come forward and put additional charges on him. And who knows maybe he has so many victims itll be like a liife sentence when everyone finishes dumping more and more charges onto him.
Humans have an a amazing ability to be idiotic so you cant always blame with malice what can be explained by idiocracy…but iif he is malicious? Ya throw the book at him. And more.
There are two parts to this:
- Ethics, a doctor would be expected to know better,
- Reality, where eventually such things will just stop being 100% percent visible, and thus will happen again and again with impunity.
So, first, doctors shouldn’t do that, second, ban or not, this will be happening all around us, no exit.
Eventually people will just have to get used to the idea of not caring about/sexualizing nudity.
So you just throw privacy out the window with the baby?
Are you american?
Do you know what the fourth amendment is, of course not?
Oh hi there keyboard warrior.
No, none of those, but i wouldn’t expect you to understand reality.
Have a nice day, bye.Someone didn’t take their meds today. Have the day you voted for.
that’s what a perv would say
Somehow people sharing your point of view in my experience are mostly men and mostly imagine it as lots of handsome young-looking people walking around in half-transparent elastic body suits in some future where everyone is “fixed” to be fit and look nice. And in that kind of sci-fi books somehow women are prevalent among characters, but the leading ones are men.
You get the general idea, yes?
I’m a very social awkward person, but honestly that worldview hints you should get out more. Again, I should follow my own advice, but.
That’s a weird world view I don’t share, but feel free to convince yourself that i do if it makes you feel better.
As always, we’ll get downvoted by the “Free the nipple! … No we didn’t actually mean it!” crowd.
Walk outside completely naked right now then if its not such a big deal. Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is.
In some countries you can.
Thank you for missing the point.
Bye
That seems like a HIPAA violation because it’s unknown eyes and ears in the exam room.
I see why places moving towards a full on ban of the Pervert Glasses.
I couldn’t watch the tiktok because there were no subtitles so maybe I am missing something.
I don’t understand how these glasses could be permitted in a medical setting. It’s becoming more normal for medical offices here to record visits and use AI to transcribe the visit. Sure, there are concerns about those in terms of accuracy, and there is a risk of unauthorized access and systems failing, but there is a list of vetted products build to meet privacy and security requirements. Kinda the same way I am only permitted to use Copilot at work because the data is not sent back to be used in training models.
I don’t believe Meta has any such programs or versions?
Fuxk tiktok, twitter, meta and google all the fuck together.
Delete them all
Fucking duh
Copilot is 100% sending data and training on it
🤷♀️
It’s my employers rule so if they fucked up that’s on them.
one of the first use case of augmented reality glasses was medical right after military. There are some positive applications for « smart » glasses. Not those from meta obviously but as with all tools there are good and bad applications and only the siths should deal in absolutes.
Does the urge to get the star wars quote in there override actually reading what I wrote?
only the siths should deal in absolutes.
A contradictory sentence - unless, of course, you’re in the Sith Order.
The tool that tried this is a monster, but I do feel sort of bad for the stock image photo models that get associated with the acts of these monsters. Like the dude in the photo could be totally chill, but is presented as though he is the pervert in the story.
That is model wearing them for Ray-Ban. He knows what he signed up for.
Does he, though? The modeling session would have been before they were released and they don’t exactly tell their models the full technical details of the stuff they make them wear.
