There is no question that this violates doctor patient confidentiality and damages trust. Fuck no. Even if they fucking have to not take off their clothes NO.
Yes, dipshits like that should be banned from the medical profession.
They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.
Check that man’s hdd for sure
Check that man’s hhd for sure
I know this is nitpicky and I’m sorry but… “hdd” not “hhd”. But probably in 2026 its an ssd anyway.
…its an ssd anyway.
It depends on how much video he has. HDDs arent cheap but SSDs are expensive and don’t add much in a data archiving scenerio.
Actually, we are probably both wrong and it’s the nand flash on his phone. The kind of tool bag buying meta pervert glasses probably isn’t actually a big techie…
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.
I will go and find a new doctor.
right after I punch Dr. M. Olester in the face.
Seriously. How many patients did this guy record before someone noticed? He needs to be killed. Sloppers can’t communicate anymore-they just ask grok what that meant and Claude how to win the argument. Language now skips the human and is entirely mediated by corporate machines. the only thing left is violence.
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.
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?
It does come down to trust, and if you walk into my doctor’s visit with a camera strapped to your face, you’ve lost mine. Doesn’t matter if it’s on or not. I distrust your descion-making abilities on a fundamental level. Plus, if they’re the kind of person who would try and film someone without them knowing, they’re also the kind of person to lie about it being off. But honestly, they might not even be trying to record surreptitiously, they might do it on accident. I’ve got a buddy who worked in IT customer support for a medical device company and would tell us horror stories, the amount of American doctors who have absolutely no fucking clue how basic technology works is staggering. Like truly scary, considering how highly we regard them and their presumed intelligence.
The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?
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.
but off,
there’s an entire creepy industry to disable the lights.
https://stealthspecs.com/product/send-in-modification-service-disable-led-on-meta-glasses/
https://www.reddit.com/r/RayBanStories/comments/s9bb2i/blocking_led_light_when_recording/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCU4RtorMY
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/meta-ai-glasses-record-without-warning-light/
Yeh I know, so clearly that way of doing it isn’t sufficient.
?
not sure what you’re saying; there’s multiple different bypasses. as long as creeps can record what they see without someone’s consent to be recorded, they’ll be creep glasses.
So much the same as phones? Are phones “creep phones”?
There are multiple ways to prevent this, they just haven’t implemented any of them yet because the pushback hasn’t been loud enough, nor has anything been legislated.
PHONES DON’T RECORD WHERE YOU LOOK.
Phones are visible! they don’t look like spectacles. Why do I have to explain this?
I suspect you’re just being duplicitous, certainly you’ve never tried to put your phone on your face or answer the glasses when you hear a ringtone.
Stop acting stupid.
Now you’re trying to make a distinction between recording and recording exactly from your PoV? Why? Why does that make any difference?
Glasses are visible, and what I’ve been saying is that there just needs to be legislation and standards around making it obvious when smart glasses are recording.
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.
Because hidden cameras aren’t common and given the legality of the situation, the risk to any medical professional to try and sneak in and use a hidden camera is extremely high. It’s not impossible, it’s just extremely unlikely. There are many many things in life that can be trusted because the odds are extremely favorable, and trusting that there aren’t hidden cameras in a doctor’s office is one of them.
Again, to not trust this reality is conspiracy level insanity. If you wanted, you can go in and sweep a medical room for hidden cameras if you’re so insecure that that’s what’s needed for piece of mind, but everyone will think you’re loony tunes.
What do you think of when you see the phrase “hidden camera” and why doesn’t that include a concealed phone?
Did I ever say it doesn’t include concealed phones? Do you sweep for hidden cameras, including concealed phones everytime you go to the doctor?
Again, it has happened, but when it’s single digit instances out of thousands or millions of doctors, that’s almost never.
You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.
No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.
Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.
It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”
It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.
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.
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.
You are not understanding the trust issue.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
As others have said, trust is broken.
You are not understanding the trust issue.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
As others have said, trust is broken.
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]
Exactly. There is zero way for those glasses to remain HIPAA-compliant, because everything you do is uploaded to Meta’s servers.
I remember a bunch of DateLine exposeés about doctors who used hidden cameras to record patients.
What does it matter if that camera was sold by Facebook?
How about we accept neither as being appropriate.
Because if a doctor puts up a hidden camera only the doctor (and anyone they might personally share the footage with) can see it. With those glasses everything goes through Meta’s servers and we don’t know who has access to the footage.
So is say the scope of the invasion of privacy is the difference.
The tool that tried this is a monster, but I do feel sort of bad for the stock image photo models that get associated with the acts of these monsters. Like the dude in the photo could be totally chill, but is presented as though he is the pervert in the story.
9 out of 10 doctors choose not to wear pervert-glasses.
But that one guy…
do you think there are only 10 doctors in the world?
Is this sarcasm?
Can’t you tell?
tough crowd
Not to defend the glasses because they’re obviously a problem, but that’s more an individual doctor issue than a problem with the product.
These glasses serve no function other than to deceive if the little light has been shut off.
The only way meta gets away with making these is the little light being on.
Ive seen countless videos of men trying to get it deactivated and so very few of it being refused, so yes they need to be banned or make it a severe crime to deactivate the little light.
In Japan, you can’t disable the shutter sound on phone cameras, because weirdos were sticking them up women’s skirts and silently taking pictures.
We didn’t do that here in America, because perversity is a human right in MAGA America.
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
Or actual journalism.
If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.
They absolutely should not be banned, they should be treated legally like any other camera/video recording device - not allowed in places like change room, bathrooms, hospitals, etc.
The actual usefulness and potential of smart glasses, especially ones with cameras, is almost unfathomable. The cameras are arguably the most important part, as that’s what will enable AR stuff, AI object recognition, and all of the other almost endless ways that will be thought of in the future.
I think laws are going to have to mandate physical shutters over the cameras, that make it super noticeable when they’re open - even if not recording.
The actual usefulness and potential of smart glasses, especially ones with cameras, is almost unfathomable.
I thought the first paragraph was leading to a decent point, but “unfathomable usefulness” is an almost rabid level of overstatement. There’s some fathomable applications as an aid for blind people, but every other use case that’s ever come up has ranged from “novelty” to “really fucking creepy” with the occasional “looks like a useful thing but didn’t really solve an actual problem we had with the previous way of doing it”.
I don’t think it is an overstatement. It could mean full AR the world over. In every shop you could look at something and have a pop up with its price, allergy information, materials, place of manufacturing.
At every sporting event you could have your own personal replays and multiple camera angles.
While cooking you could have instructions showing you exactly where to cut, how long to pour, when and how to stir, timers for multiple bits of your cooking, see the temperature of something by looking at it.
While repairing a car engine you could have every part being labelled for you, with detailed instructions on every single step of everything from changing the oil to rebuilding an engine.
While driving you could see the speed of other cars, be alerted to potential hazards, see directions from your point of view.
The limit really is the sky for AR, which is what the end goal is for smart glasses. That’s the unfathomable usefulness of the technology.
price, allergy information, materials, place of manufacturing
All of this is already written on whatever product you are buying. These problems the glasses fix are imaginary.
Why do people pretend like every product has to “solve a problem”? That’s complete rubbish.
Imagine walking down an aisle and simply looking at a product, not having to even pick it up, and it tells you that it contains something you’re allergic to or dislike. That’s the kind of thing that is possible at the absolutely lowest level of imagination required.
You aspire to be like the humans from Wall-E, lol.
I want life to be easier. I want convenience.
👍
I read your list and stand by my statement. Half the things on that list are novelties that you’d get quickly bored of, and the other half have solutions that don’t require pervert glasses. I see zero problems being solved anywhere in the list you just made.
Things don’t need to solve problems to be amazing and revolutionary.
-
Doesn’t solve a problem
-
Recording everything around you is fucking creepy
I mean at some stage you have to start wondering about the sort of person with a less-than-one-week-old account that’s up in here defending them so vociferously. I notice you’re also in other AI threads on Lemmy being equally shilly.
Nice gate keeping attempt.
The only community I am subscribed to at the moment is this one. Maybe that’s why? Like you said, I’m just new.
I’m a tech enthusiast. I love the bleeding edge of tech. I don’t look at a new tech product through the cynical lens that you clearly do. I look at it with an open mind about what it could do and what it could become. Like I said in another comment, people had these same “creep” comments and opinions about cameras on phones, but that thankfully didn’t slow down their adoption and innovation.
Do you just accuse everyone you disagree with of being a “shill”? You have to wonder about what type of person jumps straight to that.
I’ve invented a machine that turns my shit into tooth paste. It’s the bleeding edge of technology. I’m sure you’ll be excited to try it!
-
Honestly I see only one use for smart glasses with a camera and AI and that is to help blind people know what is in front of them.
You can’t see any other reason why having a heads-up-display on your vision, with AI being able to recognise every single thing in its vision? None at all?
Even the biggest haters of the technology can surely not be that blinded. Here’s an example for you - real time text and audio language translation, from any language to any language.
You now can see another reason :)
No I can’t because for spoken language I don’t need a camera, just a mic and I also wouldn’t want to be constantly bombarded with a translation of every foreign language. If I want to translate something I can’t read I can get my phone to either type it or use the camera function on that thing. These glasses will not replace my phone and that already has a camera with better privacy option than these glasses will ever have. So no. I do not see a need for a camera that videos everything I see all the time except for some very niece scenarios. If you think you need something like this, then great, but don’t expect people taking it kindly that you are filming their every move.
You said you saw no uses, not that there is no need.
“X needs to be banned” is a sign someone has no place in the conversation.
Saying “X should be banned” should be banned.
Saying
Saying “X should be banned” should be banned.
should be banned.
I see why places moving towards a full on ban of the Pervert Glasses.
A local bar has banned them already with a sign that basically says “this ban is as much to prevent you from getting punched as anything else”.
In theory they shouldn’t be a problem because I think there’s a little LED that lights up when the camera is on, but in practice people don’t know that so assume the worst.
a little LED that lights up when the camera is on,
Which can be easily covered and no, i don’t believe FB’s claim that this disables the camera.
Search turning off the light meta glasses and find why people should be arrested for these glasses.
Ive only seen a few videos where the tech refused to turn off the light.
This is actually one of the better use cases of the captured content, if contained to local medical systems used, not uploaded to cloud services, for data and diagnostics. Doc should be getting consent though and explaining he use cases.
I can totally understand the reason to capture video and conversation during a medical consultation. As someone who has to see a dermatologist from time to time, I’ve had pictures taken.
The proper protocol is to get consent first, before donning the glasses or pulling out the camera.
And I bet that the perv glasses are not the best option for capturing data for medical analysis.
Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers.
Insane to even think this is remotely okay.
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!
Every damned thread about them hurr huu but what about smartfonez as if some turd whipping out their smartphone to film someone wasn’t such an acknowleged shit move it’s a tv trope.
so fucking sick and tired of the pervert glasses boosters.
these things belong on people with visual difficulty, the visual description service should be free to them, and the devices restricted otherwise. it’s fucking gross that so many people think ‘you have no reasonable expectation to privacy in the public’ == creep cameras are cool.
fyi, there are laws in most states against voyeurism - in my state that creep behavior is a felony.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
so fucking sick of the creepglass fanboys
Strong disagree. Smart glasses will be one of the biggest tech advances in the next decade or 2 for the normal person, and I’m here for it. The awesome things that they will unlock the ability to do are almost unlimited.
There are a million cheap, easy to get and conceal cameras that perverts have access to. There are already laws around where and when and what you can record. Smart glasses don’t make anything any easier for perverts.
All that’s needed is a standard to be developed on how to physically cover the camera by default, and make it extremely obvious when the camera is not covered, even if it’s not recording. Shouldn’t be hard technically.
You don’t care that people will find you creepy?
Like, I get it if you think you’d never do awful things, sure, but being perceived as someone in that same crowd?
Huh
Also, equating these to a phone camera, a pen camera or other device is specious as shit. ‘spy cams’ often have terrible resolution; these things do not. LOL get a minox it’s the same. derp.
also, none of your concealable cameras are RUNNING FUCKIN FACIAL RECOGNITION OR OTHER AI GARBAGE they’re certain to make for these shitspecs.
re: a standard - if it wasn’t hard technically to do so, why do you think they neglected to do it?
because the creeps who will buy these don’t want that shit.
I wouldn’t be wearing them anywhere that would be considered “creepy” to wear them, and as a middle aged heavily tattooed metal fan I’m long past caring what other people think haha.
I’m not planning on buying any yet either - the tech that I’m waiting for isn’t there yet. I want all the AR stuff, maps, live translations, the ability to look at something and get info about it, do price comparisons, get instructions, etc. basically the next iteration of Microsoft’s HoloLens or Apples Vision Pro, but in normal glasses. By then the large majority of the population will have gotten over this “only perverts wear them” thing, which is quite frankly silly anyway.
The resolution of creep cams is irrelevant really (I’m sure there are many 1080p and 4K ones though), since the fact that it’s being recorded at all is the issue. Walking around with smart glasses on at least makes it obvious that you could be going to record.
As for the standard - it won’t be up to the manufacturers eventually. It’ll be regulated. I’m all for that. The EU commission will do something about it soon, though at the same time they’ll probably mandate all footage and data gets sent to law enforcement and governments since they seem to tick-tock between good and horrible actions haha
large majority of the population will have gotten over this “only perverts wear them” thing, which is quite frankly silly anyway.
sure thing buddy.
imho the people who find these creepy af is only going to grow as awareness of them grows.
but you do you.
People felt the same way about phone cameras at one stage. You might not be old enough to remember, or might not have even been born.
Phones in Japan had to be made so you couldn’t disable the shutter sound when taking a photo.
One thing I’ve really learned over the years is that a huge percentage of the population has virtually no ability to think ahead even a few years in terms of tech, let alone long term. I guarantee you that smart glasses are going to be as ubiquitous as smart phones and smart watches in a decade or 2. They are the natural evolution of the smartphone, or as an everyday wearable.
dude, I’ve been using phones since they had dials. one place I lived, we had a party line shared with 3 neighbors.
it’s not the same thing at all. Stop acting like phones and EYEWEAR are the same. People have no reasonable expectation if you’re holding a phone to their face that they aren’t being recorded. Looking at your silly stupid mug while serving your food or walking by isn’t consenting to be recorded.
One thing I’ve really learned over the years is that a huge percentage of the population has virtually no ability to think ahead even a few years in terms of tech,
this is rich, considering how out of touch you are on this subject.
I am confused. Why is this even up for debate? Why are we even putting up with people trying to debate this?
Doctors record as a way to take notes, it’s possible this guy is just an idiot. Probably a pervert though.
Because that’s how an open society with healthy exchanges of views works. Why are we even putting up with people trying to enforce their own insecurities on everyone else?
Or: Because the overton window got moved far enough and privacy now is a privilege of wealth.
Overton is an observation, not a force of influence. It isn’t why things are. We have no choice but to investigate and review whatever beliefs and values are within that window at any given time, given our ever changing world. To respond to an idea or belief with violence or censorship, instead of discussion, is to encourage tyranny. Bad ideas should be opposed by good ideas, not silenced due to some ppls discomfort with parts of our reality.
Maybe i am a bit infuriated of the salami tactics, making privacy transgressions more and more frequent. Taking pictures after asking for permission is one thing, documenting an operation where only the operation area is in view might also be necessary.
Infringing on patients privacy should be necessity-based, not by default. And the collected data should be protected as good as possible, not using some big data megacorps (that make their money off advertising or influencing people).
Because doctor. Superior species.
Something something first amendment.
Bullshit, voyeurism is a felony in most states. Invading someone’s privacy isn’t covered by the first fucking amendment you dolt.
I answered why it’s still debatable. Debating is free speech.
anything is debatable, it doesn’t make it legal or ethical. creeping on people with hidden cameras is fucking gross and needs even more regulation.
