this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
264 points (98.5% liked)
Privacy
10303 readers
1326 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The US police doesn't even care if people are overtly filming them killing people without cause, they still get away with it.
How would a "hidden" camera change this?
Also, it is fairly easy to see the camera lenses on smart glasses, they could easily find a way to knock the glasses off your face and step on them to look like a plausible accident.
You take them to court, the police department pays, best case, the police is transferred to another district.
It is far better to have a dashcam with a fisheye lens in your car, it is easily overlooked and and has a large FOV, while also picking up sound.
I see your point and agree but this part is not that clear cut.
Cameras help, they just aren't 100% effective against all cops, and against all types of abuse.
But the guy you're replying to did miss the whole...whole-whole. He crazy.
Not true. They hate it.
The individual police officer might, but filming them is for your protection from a wrongful conviction and to secure damages should they break the law during the arrest.
This sounds far more contrived than knocking a phone out of your hand.
A few hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to most people. Maybe not to you though.
Sure, but when you are a pedestrian, this isn't an option.
Are you just upset you can't use it to secretly record women?
I don't use them, but if I lived in a country where the police habitually abuse innocent citizens and get away with it, I would carry a camera on my person 24/7.
Baseless insinuation in an ineffective attempt to smear, not withstanding.
It's the in between those incidents that are the issue.
So we strip those in need of an effective tool because some abuse it?
So far I have yet to see any evidence that smart glasses is an effective tool for recoding police.
I read one case from India where smart glasses had captured a case of police bribery.
Argument from ignorance?
So you have no evidence and resort to direct attacks?
I did cite one case. I can find the quote if you like, but I also pointed out that your argument is a logical informal fallacy. That is a valid way to contribute to a discussion. Here: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/gurgaon-police-japan-tourist-social-media-justice-10225392/
"Technology has changed the architecture of accountability. In the twentieth century, oversight flowed primarily through institutions: courts, legislatures, and professional media. In the twenty-first century, it flows through networks. A single video can expose misconduct, contradict official statements, and mobilize public scrutiny within hours. " https://thefulcrum.us/media-technology/right-to-record-police
In this case, yes.
Should we limit the rights of trans people to visit women's restrooms and changing rooms because some perverts use that loop hole to abuse women as well?
I want you to be consistent in your application of the law.
Put that goalpost back where it was, we're talking about meta glasses and the inappropriate use, but, to answer crazy with crazy, if, for some miraculous reason, trans people gained the ability to record with their eyes and upload it to the internet, we'd have to probably do something about it, but, as far as I know, they can't secretly record videos with their eyes, unless they can and they're all keeping it a secret from us... can you lot record videos with your eyes? that would be pretty fucking cool if you could.
And I brought up the right of men to enter women's spaces and the inappropriate use of that right. It is not my fault that you can't follow a very simple train of thought.
Again, your inability to understand might make reason seem crazy, but go off king.
What about if trans people physically and sexually abuse women in women's spaces? What then?
Your train of thought went in a direction far away from the topic, just seems like you want to go on an anti trans rant, so I'm gonna bounce.
Run away when the truth would paint you as the hypocrite you are.
You're an odd one.
If you think we should ban smart glasses because gross white men can use them to record women in public, we should ban gross men from accessing women's spaces. Do you agree or are you a hypocrite?
Banning technology/banning a living person... Yeah totally the same argument. You need help man.
Banning use of a space vs banning the use of certain technology in a space. I get that you can't speak openly on the trans issue because you fear social backlash, but please actually answer the question instead of dodging.
What about body cams? Should we ban the public from owning these as well?
I don't share your views on trans people so I'm not bothering with it.
To your question about bodycams for the public, if the camera is obvious what it is, in plain sight and has a visual notification to say when it's recording, then that's fine.
If it's hidden inside an object that has no distinction that it's a camera and looks nothing like a camera or shows no signs its recording, then no, that's an issue.
The real issue this post is about, is people bringing meta glasses that are indistinguishable from other Ray bans into places where people have the right to privacy, it's about the violation of privacy with technology.
What do you mean "views on trans people"? I am pro trans, but against the idea that a biologically male individual has access to spaces reserved for biological females. Aren't you?
So the pigs can adjust their behavior accordingly? How does boot leather actually taste?
Which places are these? What places of privacy exist where men and women can co-mingle? I don't know of many co-ed dressing rooms, shower facilities etc. in America, but sure, ban smart glasses from these.
Most of the cases of people recording women I have seen have been in public. You agree that this shouldn't be illegal in one party consent states right?
You're an insane person, I'm done, you win, I'm gonna go have a bong and play some videogames.
Can you tell me why I am insane or are you just going to retreat into your safety blanket of drugs because reality got too real?
Nah I'm all good, imma let you live with the belief you won an internet argument with a random stranger.
You can work out why you're insane yourself, not my job to do that. Peace out dumb cunt.
Run away coward.
Nah I'm just gonna ignore you from now on, like most people in your life probably do, so no real change for you.
Holy fuck you just can't stop engaging with "insane" people can you? All that yapping and still no answer to a simple question.
Says the pervent that wants the ability to wear pervert glasses in women's restrooms
Go fuck yourself with your ad hominem. Cunt.
I'm so sorry, I misspoke. I'll correct it:
You must be mad that I'm right. Shame hurts, doesn't it?