That is not to say that humans are not scum who use these for creepy stuff, but there are cameras everywhere, location data, metadata, microphones, GPS, wifi, comms towers, not to mention the software on all those devices.
I also have an issue with these, and vehemently oppose them at every turn.
The human scum that develop, market and sell these things are also deserving of equal ire. The only difference is that they are the creators, not the direct end users, so they are harder to target with lawsuits due to the sheer size of the corporations and the amount of money being pushed into lobbying for their use (the “but its in the name of public safety!”/ “won’t someone think of the children!” Crowd are always used by these companies to astroturf public opinion through browbeating etc)
Where’s the hypocrisy? I’ve never suggested that these companies get a free pass to spy on people. Just because I’m verbal in my opposition to the use of permanently active cameras disguised as glasses does not mean I am not opposed to the panopticon we’ve been forced to grow up in.
Given technological development, eventually we will have actual, invisible implants for these things. Smart eyes, enhanced ears. How will we cope with that? When you cant even tell that you are being actively livestreamed or recorded, or algorithmically analyzed for personal information?
So by that logic, just because it might happen in the future, we shouldn’t fight against it and work towards getting the rights to walk the streets without surveillance by unknown agents written into law to protect our privacy?
To me that reads the same way as “Why should we do anything to stop climate change when the air we’re breathing is slowly becoming toxic? We’ll all be dead in a couple of decades anyway.” (Hyperbolic but along the same line of a defeatist “what’s the point in making things better now when they’re going to get worse?” arguing.)
I’m not necessarily arguing in favor of them, it just seems to me that we as people have found a convenient scapegoat by venting our frustration on the end user, while the real problem is systemic.
As for the future hypothetical, that was meant as a thought excercise on what is likely to come, and how that will fit in with this social climate. It is only gonna get worse from an anti-creep point of view, and seeking to remain anonymous by not getting recorded seems a losing battle. We should be focusing on countermeasures instead, so regardless of if we know the camera is there, we can feel safe®.
I’m not using the people (i.e. the people spoken about in the original post that we are talking on) using this technology as a scapegoat.
I will happily say that without companies producing these privacy breaching products, the people that misuse them would have one less avenue to exploit and violate other’s privacy.
If you want a thought exercise, instead of “Creeps will use them anyway.” How about “If there are laws put in place to protect people’s right to privacy, creeps would be less likely (or at least less able) to commit these offenses with impunity.” Which in my mind is a far better option than “we promise our always-on cameras aren’t used for nefarious means, you can trust us because we are the company that sells the creep glasses.”
The countermeasures you mention- other than laws preventing their use what are they?
This isn’t a matter of feeling safe “even if we’re being recorded” it’s a matter of “being safe because we are not being recorded by those with immoral intentions.”
To put it in simpler terms with a bit of analogy -Better to keep the gun away from the toddler than wait for them to blow their shit smoove off with it.
I also have an issue with these, and vehemently oppose them at every turn.
The human scum that develop, market and sell these things are also deserving of equal ire. The only difference is that they are the creators, not the direct end users, so they are harder to target with lawsuits due to the sheer size of the corporations and the amount of money being pushed into lobbying for their use (the “but its in the name of public safety!”/ “won’t someone think of the children!” Crowd are always used by these companies to astroturf public opinion through browbeating etc)
Where’s the hypocrisy? I’ve never suggested that these companies get a free pass to spy on people. Just because I’m verbal in my opposition to the use of permanently active cameras disguised as glasses does not mean I am not opposed to the panopticon we’ve been forced to grow up in.
So by that logic, just because it might happen in the future, we shouldn’t fight against it and work towards getting the rights to walk the streets without surveillance by unknown agents written into law to protect our privacy?
To me that reads the same way as “Why should we do anything to stop climate change when the air we’re breathing is slowly becoming toxic? We’ll all be dead in a couple of decades anyway.” (Hyperbolic but along the same line of a defeatist “what’s the point in making things better now when they’re going to get worse?” arguing.)
I’m not necessarily arguing in favor of them, it just seems to me that we as people have found a convenient scapegoat by venting our frustration on the end user, while the real problem is systemic.
As for the future hypothetical, that was meant as a thought excercise on what is likely to come, and how that will fit in with this social climate. It is only gonna get worse from an anti-creep point of view, and seeking to remain anonymous by not getting recorded seems a losing battle. We should be focusing on countermeasures instead, so regardless of if we know the camera is there, we can feel safe®.
I’m not using the people (i.e. the people spoken about in the original post that we are talking on) using this technology as a scapegoat.
I will happily say that without companies producing these privacy breaching products, the people that misuse them would have one less avenue to exploit and violate other’s privacy.
If you want a thought exercise, instead of “Creeps will use them anyway.” How about “If there are laws put in place to protect people’s right to privacy, creeps would be less likely (or at least less able) to commit these offenses with impunity.” Which in my mind is a far better option than “we promise our always-on cameras aren’t used for nefarious means, you can trust us because we are the company that sells the creep glasses.”
For your reading pleasure;
https://www.svd.se/a/K8nrV4/metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-privacy-concerns-workers-say-we-see-everything
https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/05/meta-sued-over-ai-smartglasses-privacy-concerns-after-workers-reviewed-nudity-sex-and-other-footage/
https://natlawreview.com/article/smart-glasses-and-privacy-wearable-surveillance-and-disclosure-issues
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ice-facial-surveillance-glasses
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/immigration-officers-meta-ai-glasses-b2937382.html
The countermeasures you mention- other than laws preventing their use what are they?
This isn’t a matter of feeling safe “even if we’re being recorded” it’s a matter of “being safe because we are not being recorded by those with immoral intentions.”
To put it in simpler terms with a bit of analogy -Better to keep the gun away from the toddler than wait for them to blow their shit smoove off with it.