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.
My PCP wears Bluetooth headphones so that his notes are transcribed by his nurse. He always asks me if this is ok, and the device he wears is obviously visible. I can’t imagine a world where your doctor would secretly spy on you. Fuck this noise.
They shouldn’t be allowed in a work place setting withought prior acknowledgement and consent.
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.
Yeah, you’d think that all recordings would have to be local…and not on the cloud.
ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed
edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a.
The HIPAA rules are full of “Observe best practices” and “Take reasonable precautions” terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason.
They’ll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it’s not until there’s a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone’s records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I’ve been.
Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I’d give it 70:30 because it’s a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen.
I see why places moving towards a full on ban of the Pervert Glasses.
If true he should lose license.
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!
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
I could use them to document, diy content creators would get some great close up work details …hell even the OG google glasses are in wide use in warehouse logistics for their huds. There are use applications. But they’re not advertising for that. They’re advertising for abuse. And they’re getting that demographic
do whatever you want with other consenting adults in the privacy of your home.
No one would say shit.
It’s the upskirt downshirt creepshot assholes, it’s the pick up artists and racist harrasment dickheads that should be beaten in the fucking street.
I feel bad for the people with vision impairment that these could genuinely help, but instead of making an accessibility tool, meta’s chosen to make a privacy invasion tool that has some great accessibility uses, then try to use that as cover for the creeps.
it’s all so fucking on point for the creepshow that is meta
the fucking foundation myth is wanting to stalk women so definitely on par
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.
Lemmy unfortunately does have a chronic sexism problem.
also I suspect the shill bots have started to find their way over here too.
eh… there are sexist assholes everywhere.
I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as reddit was. but that’s my own experience, ymmv.
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.
I am confused. Why is this even up for debate? Why are we even putting up with people trying to debate this?
Because some of those people are billionaire oligarchs.
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?
Doctors record as a way to take notes, it’s possible this guy is just an idiot. Probably a pervert though.
They need to ask consent for this kind of shit. At least HIPAA is real fucking clear about this shit.
Probably and diot, possibly a pervert.
Sadly a number of EHRs integrate with perv glasses.
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.
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.
Correct. Doctor should have his head put through the wall. Use a stud finder so you don’t miss.
What!? lol.
It’s why you can’t stop the debate. It’s not illegal to be wrong.
You don’t have a first amendment right to debate stuff here.
I do find it funny how much people hate our society’s fundamental rights and want to limit them as much as possible. AIN’T NO FUCKIN FREE SPEECH HERE. WE HATE THAT SHIT.
Fundamental rights? You don’t actually have a fundamental right to free speech, nobody has to respect that, only the US government as it pertains to their constitution. None of this applies to the first amendment because IT’S NOT THE US GOVT TRYING TO RESTRICT IT. You’re in a world-wide forum. Do you think anyone in another country gives a shit what your government thinks about your US rights? Say what you want, but literally nobody has to care what you think
It’s not that. We just understand what those rights are. And what they’re not.
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”.
Most pager systems are actually huge privacy violations. $20 for a software defined radio dongle and a few minutes will give you plaintext pager notifications for hospitals across your state.
Did a project on it when I was breaking into cybersecurity.
There are encrypted paging setups, but there’s a lot of places still running legacy.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
I think it was in the UK
Does the NHS not have better patient protections in place than the US’s shitty system?
I would hope so but I’m not sure
He’s probably been sued multiple times and wants to provide defensive evidence.
Sorry, but I had to record you naked because of our litigious society.
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.
“I installed secret cameras in the women’s changing rooms to catch shoplifters! Why are you arresting me?”
so dumb he keeps breaking the law? by breaking new laws?
what a fascinatingly stupid concept
Source: ass
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.
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.
Every slopper should just be killed. They are already p-zombie puppet terminals for some silicon valley billionaire, so its only biologically murder.
[bums], [boobs], [other]
[Hot dog] [Not hot dog]
don’t stop there, call the fucking regulatory agencies for the hospital and the doc. the hospital is obviously at enormous risk for the liability this moron is opening up and probably would like to fire him before the lawsuits land on them.
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.
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.
Don’t walk out until you’ve left the slopper needing a doctor.
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.
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/
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?
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?
If your proctologist had an OnlyFans-branded go-pro strapped to their head, would you drop trou and bend over?
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.
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?
-
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
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.
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
deleted by creator
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”.
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.
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.
“X needs to be banned” is a sign someone has no place in the conversation.
Saying “X should be banned” should be banned.
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?
