Smart glasses are COOL! Why are you so BUTTHURT about Docturs and Social Media giants with DISTURBING and NONEXISTANT Privacy Practices seeing your PRIVATE NAKED VIDEOS? Stupid LIBTARDS!
-People in this Thread!
I am confused. Why is this even up for debate? Why are we even putting up with people trying to debate this?
Because doctor. Superior species.
Something something first amendment.
First amendment only protects you from being persecuted by the government. Being ostracized, shamed and unfortunately attacked in the middle of the night by anonomous people isn’t against the first amendment.
But they are allowed to debate.
Depends on the debate. The government can’t stop them from debating. If you host a debate though, without any government affiliation, you’re not forced to let them attend. In the same way, if you own a forum on the internet, you can silence anyone you want to. The literal ONLY thing the first amendment protects against, is government persecution for speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how people react to said speech. Just because someone cries “Muh first amendment!” doesn’t mean you actually have to respect them. You can shame them, silence them, ostracise them. Put up billboards telling people how fucking insane they are. Take out an ad in the local newspaper to display their bullshit in an attempt to shame them into submission, tell them to go fuck themselves. If they’re in your house, you can toss them out. YOU can do whatever you want. YOU can’t breach the first amendment, only the government can.
Pervert Glasses™️ by definition can not be HIPAA compliant.
The fact that this doctor even made the attempt should warrant a serious review of their conduct.
I used to work at a hospital and I have experience with doctors who firmly believe that their comfort and convenience tops HIPAA and anything else. I had to file several violations for doctors who wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.”There is a nonzero chance that this doctor didn’t even continue thinking about the consequences beyond “but I need to have the latest thing”.
wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.
Wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers for what? My office still has pagers, but that’s mainly because we’re in the hospital’s basement and don’t have very good reception.
The rest of the hospital generally works off of sms for messaging when a patient is roomed, or for being on call. I don’t know how you could break hipaa using a sms in place of a pager.
If this was in 1992 ok, valid point. Anyone currently forcing doctors to use pagers when secure alternatives that allow for better communication exist deserves pushback.
Eh, I still have a pager and so do a lot of other people in hospitals. It’s mainly because most hospitals have locations that eat cell phone reception.
Are there alternatives outside of paging. I know the risk of texting sensitive information, but I figured there’d be a more modern system than paging.
By the time I stopped working there they were using an app that had an E2E encrypted connection to the medical records system so they could actually even get test results and such as texts. The instances I was describing happened in the early days of iMessage right as we were starting the upgrade of the pager system. Most of the problem doctors had recently finished residencies or internships at hospitals that had already upgraded.
It seems according to the video the surgeon had already seen the patient in a state of undress so this is even bigger than HIPAA. If they were recording, he’s probably doing time for each patient visit.
Even if they were not recording from his perspective you have no idea what the stupid things are doing. You don’t really control them, Meta does.
They’re under 24/7 watch by that Indian company I thought, for “ai training”.
He’s probably been sued multiple times and wants to provide defensive evidence.
“I installed secret cameras in the women’s changing rooms to catch shoplifters! Why are you arresting me?”
So his solution to getting sued is that he creates another reason to be sued? Wearing a potentially always on, personally controlled recording device, that has been reported to send the footage to overseas workers to categorize it without user knowledge, in a HIPAA setting is just asking for another lawsuit.
Source: ass
Sorry, but I had to record you naked because of our litigious society.
The glasses or the doctor? I have no great love for doctors and I find we as a society are far too lax with these assholes.
Tbh I’d be making a complaint to the practice, med org (if any) the practice is a part of, as well as the AMA. That’s absolutely egregious, and entirely indefensible as a medical practitioner.
I can honestly put up with a lot, especially in a doctor’s office. Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass. I would walk out if my doctor came in with those glasses. I will go and find a new doctor. There is no way I am okay with a personal camera in that exam room.
It’s not even a personal camera. The footage is uploaded to Facebook where they have humans categorize and tag it.
[bums], [boobs], [other]
[Hot dog] [Not hot dog]
I will go and find a new doctor.
right after I punch Dr. M. Olester in the face.
Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass.
Psssshhhhhh! Prude!
Btw, I’m not defending these doctors with the glasses. Fuck that shit! That should absolutely be banned.
I’m just saying anal is awesome! You’re missing out.
I totally get what you’re saying.
However, it is kind of funny (interesting?) that people will trust that there isn’t a hidden camera in the exam room without question, but mistrust someone who has a camera openly displayed, but off, in the exam room. As if the reminder that cameras exist is what negates that trust, not the risk of being recorded.
This is more of a philosophical musing than a defense of wearing a camera into an exam room.
a camera openly displayed, but off,
I know enough about technology and big tech companies to be completely unwilling to believe that any device claiming to be “off” or even just to have some feature “off” can be trusted not to be collecting data anyway, at least in certain situations. They have completely and utterly destroyed that trust, and are at this very moment still dancing gleefully on its corpse. It doesn’t really make any sense for them to act surprised when we refuse to believe a company like Meta will take anyone’s privacy seriously.
Without evidence, the idea that there’s a hidden camera in the exam room is just paranoid speculation. By contrast, this was an actual visible camera in the exam room, and a camera that was obviously the doctor’s own personal device. It makes sense to worry more about the camera you know is real.
It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?
So, now you have to trust:
-
That the person is not intentionally recording you.
-
That they are not unintentionally recording you.
(Because if a camera is on, and eventually connected to the Internet, well… I should not have to explain how that can be an issue in this forum at least. We now have to trust the users tech literacy, and security diligence.)
I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.
I can tell you as a tech literate person in healthcare… That I am in the minority of security conscious and knowledgeable users of said technology.
I expect HIPPA violations of unparalleled proportion from this new tech.
People are already terrible at security, and now they have even more information recording methods to mess up.
HIPAA :p
Ain’t no hippa hippo here
So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.
what does that even mean? the whole point of the tech industry is for tech-literate people to work to provide products and services to the broadly tech-illiterate public. the goal of a tech product is to be used with as little tech-literacy as possible. why would you assume that someone is highly tech-literate just because they use the product of a tech company?
I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?
-
the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved…
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
They still send data when they’re not recording. In either case, the doctor needs to be sued.
“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.
Sued for what?
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
That’s the thing though, it’s multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don’t just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of “accidental” system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.
Having a hidden camera in a room would be illegal. The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%. Just to survive, people have to be able to trust in something rather than question every single aspect, and trusting that your medical office isn’t illegally wired to record you secretly is a safe bet. However, when a dumbass walks in with their personal gear that is designed to record and save that recording into a cloud is not even remotely acceptable, especially when that cloud is Meta.
Comparing the two like the hidden camera is a common thing is some major tinfoil hat shit.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.
How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.
That’s because there is generally implicit trust that there is no hidden cameras. The open display of a camera effectively destroys that trust. If everyone was always suspicious of there being hidden cameras everywhere, functioning in society would be pretty difficult.
Well, you see, I need my hidden wearable camera to detect other hidden cameras…
Sure, but if a person doesn’t trust their doctor to have a camera in their possession in the room, why would they trust that same doctor not to have one hidden?
That’s what I’m saying. They have that trust and the visible camera would destroy it in an instant because it’s expected to be private. You can’t expect people to assume that there will be something that shouldn’t be there and validate that fact.
Does it matter whether the camera is on or off?
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.
From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that’s on their face, then you can’t rule out that they’d do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.
At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn’t come off suggesting otherwise.
Yes, I totally understand the logic. It’s just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:
- A hidden camera is more dangerous for the victim because it is less risky for the creep/abuser.
- You will not reasonably believe that a doctor will have a hidden camera inside his office.
- A camera exposed to the naked eye is less dangerous for the victim because it is more risky for the creep/abuser.
- The abuser is unlikely to take that risk because he could lose too much, much more than he would gain.
- So it is reasonable not to believe that your doctor will record or photograph you with a camera exposed to the naked eye since it is inherently riskier for the creep, and it is not reasonable to believe otherwise.
Although, the problem here then shifts to the hardware itself. Like, since these lenses were probably closed source and proprietary hardware, and their software as well, then you don’t have a way to prove that if you turn off the camera on said lens (either via the software kill-switch or via the hardware kill-switch) it is actually turning off, or just appears to turn off when it is actually still on but disguised as being turned off. And taking into account that there are precedents of devices doing this (a particularly famous case was that of a smart TV that even when you turned it off, it was not really off, but in a false shutdown, a very low power state where the screen was off, but the core and some telemetry processes, and the microphone, were still running and, thus, recording and sending everything that was recorded to their servers). So the only rational position, at least from a Game Theory point of view, is to assume that every device that is both closed source and closed hardware, that is not Free, Libre and Open Source Software, and Libre and Open Source and Schematics Hardware (yeah, even releasing their schematics), does the same thing.
If you’d actually read the comment you’d see they already answered this question
It’s because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.
It’s neither funny nor interesting. Hope that helps
I couldn’t watch the tiktok because there were no subtitles so maybe I am missing something.
I don’t understand how these glasses could be permitted in a medical setting. It’s becoming more normal for medical offices here to record visits and use AI to transcribe the visit. Sure, there are concerns about those in terms of accuracy, and there is a risk of unauthorized access and systems failing, but there is a list of vetted products build to meet privacy and security requirements. Kinda the same way I am only permitted to use Copilot at work because the data is not sent back to be used in training models.
I don’t believe Meta has any such programs or versions?
Copilot is 100% sending data and training on it
🤷♀️
It’s my employers rule so if they fucked up that’s on them.
Fuxk tiktok, twitter, meta and google all the fuck together.
Delete them all
Fucking duh
one of the first use case of augmented reality glasses was medical right after military. There are some positive applications for « smart » glasses. Not those from meta obviously but as with all tools there are good and bad applications and only the siths should deal in absolutes.
Does the urge to get the star wars quote in there override actually reading what I wrote?
I don’t like this “smart glasses are evil” sentiment. They would improve the lives of many people. I’ve seen demonstrations of its use for blind people. Even people simply travelling and having everything translated automatically would be nice. But, yeah, going into a restroom with them on, or not asking for authorization from the patient to use them, crosses a big red line.
The idea of them is incredible. I grew up watching sci fi galore with holographic AI personal assistants, and AR glasses, and 3D printers, etc. The idea of these technologies is amazing.
The reality of them is a little different. It’s hard to get behind certain advancements when they are completely in the control of a handful of people on Earth who have more wealth than everyone else combined. It’s impossible to ethically endorse these projects when the companies responsible have time and again proven themselves to be untrustworthy. And I mean, you shouldn’t trust them with your name and age, let alone videos and pictures of you—and strangers!—naked in a doctor’s office.
The technology and the possibilities are awesome and awe inspiring. The society we live in is not ready for them. Hell, much of the world still hasn’t caught up with how to adequately regulate and legislate for the internet revolution that happened over thirty years ago, nevermind for smart glasses that can always be recording.
Any product created by a company that has demonstrated evil intent should be considered evil, even if there are legitimate valid uses. You have to trust not only the person using it, but also the company that controls what the device can/will do with or without the users constent.
Nope. They are evil
The smart glasses aren’t evil in the same way that AI or social media aren’t evil, they all have huge potential to enrich and enable all of society. The problem is that they are for profit regardless of the consequences so any hope of that enrichment or net positive outcome actually becoming real is delusional and the sad reality is that they will be subverted and weaponised to make money at every opportunity.
I only spend time on Lemmy in bursts, but it has become pretty clear that most people in this “technology” community absolutely hate all forms of technology. It’s pretty weird.
I don’t hate tech. But we are definitely in time of techno robber barons who have long drained any benefit of the doubt. Meta especially deserves no grace.
There’s a clear disctinction these days bewteen “Tech” and “Big Tech™️”. This is firmly in the latter.
I feel like thats because technology is at odds with ethics in the majority of popular fields of tech and corporations care about money, not ethics. I’m definitely not a luddite, but I understand the hate when technology is used to opress instead of bettering human lives
Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.
But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.
I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.
But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.
I think many people are able to make a distinction between the technology companies and the technology. However in this particular discussion…how many companies are there actually offering smart glasses as a product to consumers? I’d argue as far as the general public is concerned the answer is only Meta right now. A company with a HORRIBLE reputation in regards to privacy. That makes it more theoretical in separating the idea of what smart glasses could be versus the reality of what they currently are. And right now, to me, smart glasses, particularly Meta’s glasses feels like a product with SO many privacy issues that I would question the judgment of anyone who chooses to use that product. Maybe that won’t be the case in the future, but unless things drastically change in regards to consumer data privacy standards, I’m going to stick to being very suspicious of them.
Also I’ll add— I did not downvote you but to me some of your other replies in this thread come across as almost a little intentionally obtuse.
We’re not anti technology, were vocally anti destructive and anti privacy technology. AI is terrible in almost every facet. It’s a neat technology on paper, but the environmental and societal impact far outweighs any positives from it. Camera glasses that record people that don’t want to be recorded and saved to a cloud where that information is trained on and out of the control of anyone that’s been recorded is a major privacy violation. Again, the technology of having smart glasses is neat on paper, but it reality is awful and prime for abuse.
So we don’t hate all technology, just the shit technologies, like those mentioned plus flock and Microsoft products to add to the pile. Not being critical of these technologies is insane to me, because it lets these companies push the limit of what’s acceptable without reprecussions.
As I said elsewhere, I can differentiate between technology and technology companies. I didn’t realize that was so odd.
You can’t seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.
If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you’re incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.
Is your stance that if the glasses were made by, say, Sony, no one would care?
I find that very difficult to believe, but would gladly read how you arrived at that conclusion.
The topic of the community is “technology”. It’s not called “pro-technology”. Negative commentary on technology is included in “technology” as a topic.
Reddit subversives can go back to reddit we don’t care
You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.
Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?
ok fine. you can stay then. I love you
I don’t understand the “x-ray vision” comments. Am I out of the loop?
old school 80’s/90’s sci-fi humor. They’d often use some superpower or new tech with “x-ray vision” that can conveniently see through clothes but not skin…
I imagine the rest can be left to your imagination on how that humor was utilized.
