bennyelv
If someone is motivated to secretly or inappropriately film, they will do so with whatever device they have. Having these glasses doesn’t tell you anything more about whether they’re that kind of person than the colour of their shirt.
Whether you will notice is entirely context and situation dependent. In some cases the glasses would be hard to notice, in others the use of a phone would be hard to notice.
So while your perspective that people who want to secretly film stuff should be unwelcome is quite reasonable, the test you apply to detect it is misdirected.
You may have a specific issue with the fact that the media goes through meta’s services, but that’s not the point that is being made in this thread.
All of the ethical and legal issues apply to all other cameras and camera footage too.
Being filmed without your knowledge is happening all the time, these glasses haven’t moved the needle at all.
If someone stands in front of you and interacts with you, firstly the camera in these glasses is not hidden and the glasses themselves are quite distinctive, and secondly, a light comes on exactly where you would be looking as you interact - next to their eyes.
On those two points, I’d argue that they’re exactly the same as phones or other cameras when it comes to being able to secretly record.
They’re nothing like glasses from spy novels, they’re extremely noticeable.
Cameras exist. This is a camera. All cameras have the same problems this one. So why are we debating about this camera vs that camera rather than whether cameras should be allowed.
The fact is that if you stood outside any company office, with a highly visible camera crew, and then asked people who were passing by whether they worked at that company, most of them would probably feel quite apprehensive.
They would also be apprehensive if there was no camera at all.
So what exactly is the point that is being made in this video? People are apprehensive when put into situations with other people where their intentions are not clear and there are signs that the intentions might be malicious. Very informative…
1. You’ve inferred that the reason the glasses exist is to enable people to harass other people. That’s a very odd conclusion. 2. Where’s the without them knowing? Meta literally designed the hardware so that you do know that you’re being filmed, unlike almost every other camera on the market. 3. You haven’t managed to separate the decisions and accountability of an individual from the tool that they use to execute those decisions. This is a strange way to look at the world. It places inherent moral values into inanimate objects.
Think through how realistic an attack this really is…
How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?
If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.
Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.
When phones first had cameras, and people were not aware, it would have been easier to secretly film. But news flash, where I’m sitting right now in a cafe full of tech workers, nobody would notice if I started secretly filming on my phone.
If I wanted to secretly film, I’d be more confident of getting away with it using my phone than with a set of glasses which have a flashing light on them.
Some software engineers would make good product managers, some product managers would make good software engineers, and the majority of both are best suited to their current job.
I did spend the first half of my career in banking though, so maybe I've got a different baseline.
Although you could well be right about the nature of the transaction, it's definitely a bad idea to be doing that with the bank!
Impractical for a normal person who wants to just live their life.
The banana, the angle of the banana the certificate itself are all theatre, designed to be a plausible high value good that can be created from thin air with the sole purpose of being an excuse to transfer someone some money that they can then claim to be legitimate earnings regardless of where the money originally came from.
Anyone who gets suckered into this scene without understanding its true nature is, well, a sucker.
Kids riding to school is the only use case they satisfy.
My understanding of law is generally UK based, but I'm not aware of legislation what would supersede a contract term limiting liability when the event that created the liability was one of general diligence/competence in carrying out the contract rather than relating to health and safety or some other area that is heavily legislated.
For that reason I'm unconvinced on the article's statement that this isn't just a "French Legal System" thing and that the same kind of judgement might be made in other jurisdictions.