this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
702 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
86697 readers
3625 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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
Were it not for the fact that it's the fucking privacy-invading big tech companies doing it, I would admit that there are good use-cases for the camera:
I've heard they can be also quite useful for blind/vision-impaired users to describe surroundings and read signs, etc.
Even then I could see people not wanting picture, video, or audio recorded of them even if it is just kept locally for private use. And that's the problem of these glasses with trying to be discrete so people who would have avoided you or asked you to stop recording before having a conversation are left unaware.
They'd be helpful when interacting with police. Heck, I could see them being useful when interacting with anyone in a hostile situation. What people will say when they don't think they're being recorded and what they will say when they know they are can be vastly different, and the people that will speak and act differently are the very ones you want to record. I've had occasions in the past where these would have been very useful, though it turned out recorded audio was sufficent.
Unfortunately the tech is ripe for abuse and I understand the mistrust they cause. Too many crappy people, and too many crappy tech companies that will abuse the video themselves even if the person wearing them only used them with good intentions.
Even though I agree with recording police, the fact that your first thought went straight to “hidden camera for the purpose of recording without consent” makes this a nonstarter to begin with.
Most states it's legal to record audio without consent if you're a party to the conversation, and it's legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.
For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I'd not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I'd have likely not beat the charges. So yeah... I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.
They weren't talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I'd argue there's implied consent as they're public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they're working for the owner class, but they're paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I'd say that's fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.
38 states believe if you're a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn't be allowed to protect yourself.
But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won't suggest there aren't reasons that some states are like that but I'm sure glad I didn't live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.
Legality ≠ morality. 38 states believe you shouldn't be prosecuted for the act. That is not a statement in what you should or should not do. I agree mostly with not making it illegal because, like I said, there are exceptions that make it something you should do. The law does not handle things like that well.
This isn't to say someone shouldn't punch you in the face if you're filming them doing something they believed to be private. Are you legally allowed to? Sure. Should society allow it, in all cases all the time? Fuck no, and there should be consequences for it.
This is similar to the type of arguments made by those wanting increased surveillance with stuff like flock camera and ID online verification expansion. Pointing to the bad things in the world it helps prevent or track down that happens.
And pointing to the law to keep pushing what they are allowed to record and track.
Privacy and security has been a balancing act. And even examples of bad thing that happens I'm sure you can relate is the very common attempt at emotional appeal used by them.
Not denying your use case, but when it comes to surveillance they all seem to use the argument of safety.
A person being able to record what they see and hear is different than a robot that records everything. I strongly disapprove of flock and online ID verification. Those aren't related to a person being able to make a personal record.
I'm sure that's the argument Meta is making for their glasses.
People aren't any better, since people are more likely to be recording specifically for the purposes of resharing and we do live in a social media age.
And these devices as they gain popularity would be relaying information back to the companies anyways, so make the claims of it being local or private not matter when that wouldn't be the average wearable discrete tech that would gain mainstream popularity.