But smart glasses that send everything to The Cloud? Burn them all. Especially if they're from fricken' Meta.

None of those default to sharing your recording with anyone else, let alone with no practical way to opt out.

body cams are local and mostly used by law enforcement to guarantee they are not abusing their power.

glassholes are connected to the cloud. you may have the right to record on public space, i have the right to remain anonymous in the crowd and not be constatly targeted by an advertisement company.

Even if 1% of the corner cases are legit uses (blind people having the glasses describe the world around them is fantastic.) 99% of the people using them are assholes that deserve to be put in the ground and the glasses smashed.

I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.

Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case -- eg: someone who is using them to assist with a disability, or for research, or something.

Even most dash cams don't stream to Meta -- they just record the last _n_ hours and you need to know to save off the video if you're in an crash / incident. In other words, most of the time no privacy is violated, and the only potential privacy violation occurs during an incident.

Even policy body cams, which I wholeheartedly support, have some pretty strong downsides: currently, if you're at the end of your rope, having the worst day of your life, and in your dishevelment turn a speeding ticket into a BATLEO, you're famous forever for being a lunatic. Maybe the rest of the time you're a good person, and you can learn from this and move on. Except now you have a permanent albatross around your neck. This is a secondary penalty that the justice system did not intend, and has no answer for.

I do not want to live in such a dystopian country. No this right shouldn't exist and I'm glad it doesn't in my country.

> If none of this makes sense to you, wait till standalone cameras become much smaller to where they become a smartbutton -- what will you do then?

Why are you against killing? Wait till you don't need to hit them but can accelerate metal pieces at them -- what will you do then?

> Any American who has any opposition to public recording is fighting the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American.

Anyone who is against X deserves not to be protected by law. "First they came for the communists..."

I don't see anyone saying that people don't have the right to use them. I see people saying that they have the right to avoid being anywhere near the people who use them and to disapprove of those people. Which is just as much of a right as the right to wear spy glasses.

Why is it a right?

>Are you going to go after car cameras next?

No. A car cannot follow me into a building very easily. It cannot turn as quickly as a human head.

>Any American who has any opposition to public recording is violating the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American.

lmao

Oh blind people too. That one makes sense.

It's the camera of their smartphone.

Not sure if it's ON though.

The secondary issue is that it's generally frowned upon to make your employees view nudity in the workplace. Are there extenuating circumstances here? No, we have no evidence there are any extenuating circumstances here.