cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160
I love how they put a pic of “Epstein File Mark” in the article ;)
“Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you’re not a sex offender”.
When buying a gun and/or pervert glasses, yes, sounds very reasonable?
Either we believe in giving people the chance to become functioning citizens of society again or we don’t. I’d argue the “don’t” doesn’t seem to work out too well for the Americans. Europe, meanwhile taking the former attitude, has far better recidivism rates.
if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???
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.
im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do
its meta
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 It doesn’t matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people’s information with Meta.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.
But that’s their whole demographic.
I know it’s a hot-take… But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.
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.
And what if you’re visually impaired and you are a pervert? Joking… /s
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.
People with accessibility needs deserve to look stylish too, and strapping a camera to their face isn’t particularly a look
Too complicated, and requires bureaucracy to work.
Just ban that crap in public spaces.
I dunno if banning shit still works. NYC banned electric motorcycles being sold as ebikes and Amazon was like “lol stfu” and continues to ship them there anyway.
Uh oh, Mark’s about to lose his glasses.
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…
See, the whole joke was that Mark was the sex offender. It was a bit of a sideways jab and can be missed.
Rise up.
With smart glasses, everyone’s a sex offender.
