A woman's discomfort with a doctor wearing smart glasses during a consultation has sparked debate over privacy and the use of camera-equipped technology in healthcare settings.
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?
The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google… etc… are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn’t been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.
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.
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.
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.)
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 get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it… or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going “I bought this but realize I don’t know how to use it, and it’s too much work, do you want it”.
This isn’t even a matter of illiterate or literate.
If someone is wearing a camera always assume it’s recording. There’s literally no reason to speculate on the owners intent or competency.
Many webcams now ship with lens covers these days. You wanna take a guess why that is and why you might want a lens cover for an internet connected camera you own and control?
Ignoring possibilities for malicious software being a concern, Meta having control over their product with an internet connected recording device with AI facial recognition bullshit baked in is enough of a reason for concern. And how often do we hear about company mishandling of data leading to private information leaking?
Oops my camera was on, oh no. Why even leave an opening for a careless mistake like that to happen? At the least you’re asking for trouble.
Medical exams can be scary enough for patients w/o having to worry about a camera on someone’s face pointed at them. Patients have a right to feel comfortable in a medical setting and it’s in doctor’s best interest that they feel safe so they can do their job properly.
As for the “whatabout” hidden camera bs. Maybe worry about the one pointed at your face before you worry about the one you don’t see. If you don’t trust your doctor to not have hidden cameras maybe it’s time to find a new doctor?
Not arguing with your points (we agree), but regarding my comment about literacy (not the poster who responded):
I was implying that one needs a basic level of tech literacy to even think about cameras as always being on. (As evidenced by the OP, and the poster who replied to me)
As WE know, “I shut off the camera” does not mean the camera is not recording, and “I shut off the WIFI” does not mean the data is secure. Some do not know this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 point is, say Meta, Amazon, google… etc… are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn’t been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.
Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room?
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.
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?
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
Oops, I got too much P and not enough A.
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?
I get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it… or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going “I bought this but realize I don’t know how to use it, and it’s too much work, do you want it”.
That’s a fair point. I’m convinced the Venn diagram overlaps more than I originally assumed.
This isn’t even a matter of illiterate or literate.
If someone is wearing a camera always assume it’s recording. There’s literally no reason to speculate on the owners intent or competency.
Many webcams now ship with lens covers these days. You wanna take a guess why that is and why you might want a lens cover for an internet connected camera you own and control?
Ignoring possibilities for malicious software being a concern, Meta having control over their product with an internet connected recording device with AI facial recognition bullshit baked in is enough of a reason for concern. And how often do we hear about company mishandling of data leading to private information leaking?
Oops my camera was on, oh no. Why even leave an opening for a careless mistake like that to happen? At the least you’re asking for trouble.
Medical exams can be scary enough for patients w/o having to worry about a camera on someone’s face pointed at them. Patients have a right to feel comfortable in a medical setting and it’s in doctor’s best interest that they feel safe so they can do their job properly.
As for the “whatabout” hidden camera bs. Maybe worry about the one pointed at your face before you worry about the one you don’t see. If you don’t trust your doctor to not have hidden cameras maybe it’s time to find a new doctor?
Not arguing with your points (we agree), but regarding my comment about literacy (not the poster who responded):
I was implying that one needs a basic level of tech literacy to even think about cameras as always being on. (As evidenced by the OP, and the poster who replied to me)
As WE know, “I shut off the camera” does not mean the camera is not recording, and “I shut off the WIFI” does not mean the data is secure. Some do not know this.
Bro even Macy’s sells these things in store. They’re a mass market product.
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.
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/
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.
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.
Yes, I totally understand the logic. It’s just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:
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.
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