I don’t know. I’d be roughly as uncomfortable with someone tweeting to a large audience that they saw me at a certain location at a certain time as I would be with someone posting a photo of me to a large audience.

That's the difference though. It doesn't happen in practice if you aren't famous, because the person with the eye can only do a limited number of things at the same time, and spending all day tweeting about random people isn't what most people want to spend their time on.

> The key distinction is that the human eye and its storage system doesn't meaningfully support duplication and distribution of the picture.

That isn't necessarily true. Just because your eye doesn't doesn't mean mine doesn't. How do you know I wasn't born blind and retrofitted with a silicon eye that gives me both the ability to see and record/duplicate more easily than other humans?

This is a bad faith reply. Non-existent hypothetical devices are not worth considering when talking about the morality of something that someone does today.

I saw this a while ago, Argus II implant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ee61Bu-Ok

It exists, albeit only B&W and at a very low resolution. However as we all know, technology can advance very quickly, and high resolution cameras are not inconceivable for this application.

I choose to frame my view of morality in terms of technological developments that are likely to happen in the next 100 years (approximately a human lifetime for anyone born today), not what exists today. Today is antiquated as soon as something is invented something tomorrow.

"Hypothetical" is an assumption. You don't know what I have, and what I'm experimenting with.