You must log in or # to comment.
I finally got to handle a demo pair at Best Buy a few weeks back. They feel cheap and creaky. No one mentions this.
They need to make it a big giant bright flashing light for recording like some old video cameras had on them.
The creeps will just find a way to remove it.
Perv-vision!
you’re not my perv visor!
The problem with the light is, it’s incredibly small and dim, so is very easy to miss. Plus, people aren’t aware of what to look for yet because they’re not used to being around this “perv-vision”.
I saw a guy at a sandwich shop with them and he was loud and bragging about them which was the only reason I knew he had them.
I’m honestly shocked they’re allowed in Illinois being there’s the “all party consent” law still in effect where any audio surveillance or recording needs to make all parties aware they’re being recorded. Then add in the BIPA (biometric information privacy act) where you KNOW Meta is going to use face ID or facial recognition to tag or show the owner who’s who.
US https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-glasses-ray-ban-from-public-and-private-use
If camera glasses would be banned under all party consent then every last camera and microphone would be banned.
All party consent may only apply in private, too. A sandwich shop doesn’t count.
It’s the audio recording that matters. In Illinois, you can have cameras, no problem, but no audio UNLESS you post signage up about having audio video surveillance. This way even in public you’re “notified” about audio being used.
In a sandwich shop, I might speak at a low enough volume a camera mic wouldn’t pick me up. With no one around me to hear, the expectation is whomever I’m speaking to would be private, while in public, and they’re not recording the convo either.
I’m sure news orgs don’t have to disclose that every time they interview someone in the streets.
Well if you’re being interviewed, or passing someone being interviewed, it’d be obvious with cameras and crew there. Those cameras aren’t discreet.
they don’t care if men are filmed?
You may not be aware of this or do it intentionally but responding “what about the men” when the topic focuses on “women” is a common frustration online.
The reverse scenario, where the focus is men rarely gets a comment “how about women”
You’re technically not wrong though, everyone could be affected and i do expect journalistic pieces to be inform more broadly about an issue, but the issue does seem to disproportionally affect people who appear to be women and its also fair to note this difference.
I am sure there is no ill will on your part but i have seen online “fights” break out over this pattern. At first it confused me but once you understand it, you notice it everytime even when the post is by and for women and posted on a women focused community it will get a comment like this.
There are enough articled and discussions calling out the meta privacy issue in a non gendered way. The few adressing women are not harming any man.
I wanted to take a moment to applaud your reasoned and articulate response. tldr : well said.
why does it have to be gendered?
Having done a few clicks to look into why this specific article is gendered.
Cybernews is reporting an article By NL times
The article by NL times was already gendered.
NL Times has wrote other non gendered articles on this issue but this article was prompted by a lawsuit being prepared by Offlimits
Offlimits is an organization that combats sexual abuse.
The context of this Lawsuit is the discovery of telegram and other channels for the distribution of “creepshots”, often sexually pictures taken from compromising angles.
The victims of these creepshots are almost always women.
Its similar to catcalling. It does happen to both genders but if it happens to men its a noticeable rare event. By the time a women reaches adulthood its another tuesday.
I pray that I can one day be as measured as you were in this comment.
Yeah, it’s no different from “someone think of the kids”.
Men don’t get filmed the same way, peabrain
