Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.
I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can’t behave.
Look, taking such glasses into a locker room is a problem. But someone wearing them in public is not. Anyone punching someone who does that should be taken to jail, simple as that.
I’d say there are some valid use cases. Like sports? Biking, skiing, anywhere you might use a GoPro. This might work for sports where it is impractical to wear a GoPro.
Also if they did this right, if it had a decent hud and zoom, this could be really helpful for the visually impaired or for other disabilities or medical conditions. That’s where these would be really helpful to society. But they never focus on that kind of shit. Instead it’s tech bros who want to sell this as a gimmick people can record themselves fucking, or stupid shit in the bar for their TikTok.
lol are you just here to argue? You’re being heavily downvoted in this thread, and I think somewhat unfairly. I’m somewhat supporting your case. Where do you draw the line? I don’t know. Maybe as a starting point we could say anywhere you might wear a GoPro you could wear these? Idk, and that doesn’t cover the visually impaired case. But randomly punching people does seem a bit extreme. There’s plenty of technologies to secretly record people, if someone wants to do it, they can do it. But also there’s the question what all are these things sharing with meta, in some way to map out and track the physical world in their systems and databases.
Thank you. Yeah I got pulled in to this thread a bit too much. It’s just bugging me that multiple people have already said to me that they’d commit physical violence if I would do something legal they’d feel uncomfortable with. Multiple people threatening violence over a simple hypothetical disagreement. It’d be better for me to stop arguing, probably. But it’s hard to let go.
I can help explain. People are threatening physical violence because they see surveillance as akin to violence. They know that you are not the only one with access to the camera, that corporations or police could see them through your camera. They know that corporations and police often abuse their power and harrass people who legally oppose them.
These people feel they have no other options but violence because automatic surveillance is forced onto societies regardless of the people’s vote. They believe violence is bad, but surveillance is worse, and since surveillance can lead to violence by the state, people would rather be violence towards surveillance tech now before they are threatened for whatever the government decides is illegal that day.
I agree with you that violence is often not the answer, and that discourse and voting is the right way. Where we might disagree is how well discourse and voting works when both are manipulated for selfish gain. Violence is a last resort, never a first, and it’s important to understand why people choose violence because it shapes society so drastically.
I wouldn’t punch a person wearing smart glasses, but I support both other people breaking their property and pushing to make that property illegal. Laws serve society, not the other way around.
Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.
I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can’t behave.
Id rather nobody have one.
Look, taking such glasses into a locker room is a problem. But someone wearing them in public is not. Anyone punching someone who does that should be taken to jail, simple as that.
What about if we jail the people who wear spycams in public first? Then there won’t be any violence.
And would you make an exception for journalistic purposes? Serious question.
I’d say there are some valid use cases. Like sports? Biking, skiing, anywhere you might use a GoPro. This might work for sports where it is impractical to wear a GoPro. Also if they did this right, if it had a decent hud and zoom, this could be really helpful for the visually impaired or for other disabilities or medical conditions. That’s where these would be really helpful to society. But they never focus on that kind of shit. Instead it’s tech bros who want to sell this as a gimmick people can record themselves fucking, or stupid shit in the bar for their TikTok.
But how do you draw the line between good and bad use cases? Even trying to draw that line brings you on a fast lane to totalitarianism.
lol are you just here to argue? You’re being heavily downvoted in this thread, and I think somewhat unfairly. I’m somewhat supporting your case. Where do you draw the line? I don’t know. Maybe as a starting point we could say anywhere you might wear a GoPro you could wear these? Idk, and that doesn’t cover the visually impaired case. But randomly punching people does seem a bit extreme. There’s plenty of technologies to secretly record people, if someone wants to do it, they can do it. But also there’s the question what all are these things sharing with meta, in some way to map out and track the physical world in their systems and databases.
Thank you. Yeah I got pulled in to this thread a bit too much. It’s just bugging me that multiple people have already said to me that they’d commit physical violence if I would do something legal they’d feel uncomfortable with. Multiple people threatening violence over a simple hypothetical disagreement. It’d be better for me to stop arguing, probably. But it’s hard to let go.
I can help explain. People are threatening physical violence because they see surveillance as akin to violence. They know that you are not the only one with access to the camera, that corporations or police could see them through your camera. They know that corporations and police often abuse their power and harrass people who legally oppose them.
These people feel they have no other options but violence because automatic surveillance is forced onto societies regardless of the people’s vote. They believe violence is bad, but surveillance is worse, and since surveillance can lead to violence by the state, people would rather be violence towards surveillance tech now before they are threatened for whatever the government decides is illegal that day.
I agree with you that violence is often not the answer, and that discourse and voting is the right way. Where we might disagree is how well discourse and voting works when both are manipulated for selfish gain. Violence is a last resort, never a first, and it’s important to understand why people choose violence because it shapes society so drastically.
I wouldn’t punch a person wearing smart glasses, but I support both other people breaking their property and pushing to make that property illegal. Laws serve society, not the other way around.
You can license journalists, same way we do automobile drivers.