[barrysteve]

Why would he be forgetting that? He's allowed to be aginst both glasses and city-wide survelliance.

This knee-jerk attempt to annul judgment has been so heavily bred into online discussions, since roughly 2018.

Our current state of recording is not a counter argument to the concept, it's a stating of the facts.

[Draiken]

I cannot tell you why, or if in this specific instance they are forgetting or not.

My point is more of a general one. The hypocrisy of the masses is real. Most only really care about the instances they can perceive and accept all other ones as long as they aren't inconvenient.

I'm not trying to annul any judgements, merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live under. At this point having a camera in your glasses is merely a more convenient way to take pictures.

And it's not like there aren't already glasses with cameras, for example. If a creep wants to creep, they will do it whether we want it or not. I simply don't understand how this product changes anything in relation to what already happens.

We are already surveilled and creeps already take pictures.

[M4v3R]

This lowers the barrier to take unwanted photos/videos significantly. Yes, surveillance cameras are everywhere but your everyday person does not have access to their feed (and the publicly accessible ones are not that common and usually very far away). This is different from possibly being recorded by anyone you pass by in high resolution, for their own personal use.

Also, today when a person takes a photo of you it's usually very apparent, hence most people hesitate just pointing a camera at you to shoot a picture. Tomorrow, when these become more and more popular, just a glance at someone will be enough and no one will hesitate.

Finally, this argument is basically: "oh well, we live in a crappy world already, so making it even more crappy is not a problem".

[Draiken]

For me it comes down to ignoring valid use-cases because some people might misuse it (but can already do that without this product) without actually improving anything in the larger sense. It feels like a waste.

I understand that theoretically it lowers the bar, as you said. But in my view that's not as drastic as many are expecting. You still have an LED showing the person is taking a picture and they have to command it with their voice (or a button in the glass?) to take a picture. That's apparent enough for me.

That'll be equivalent to someone pointing a phone at you. Depending on the situation it would be even more apparent since holding your phone up is extremely common today.

I absolutely hate the state we are today, but I don't see how prohibiting/shaming this product will improve anything. I can definitely see the appeal of having one of these in trips, shows, etc. Those legitimate use-cases are being bundled up with the paranoia of strangers taking pictures, which already happens today, whether we want to believe it or not.

Imagine having concerts where people aren't fucking holding their phones up all the time again. Now that would be a sight for sore eyes.

Having said all that, maybe I'm simply numb at this point. I know we're in dystopia territory already so might as well have some nice trinkets with it.

[JohnFen]

> merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live under.

Just because a Bad Thing is already foisted on us to the point where it's impossible to avoid doesn't make it OK to make that situation even worse.