[smokedetector1]

you genuinely dont see a difference between

(1) a single or handful of security-angled cameras controlled by a local business for security purposes

(2) any individual possibly recording you at eye level at any second without you knowing, and having the ability to use and manipulate that footage and upload it to the internet

[garciansmith]

Plus: (1) the security camera footage is constantly overwritten. (2) the video from the glasses is being uploaded to Meta.

[g-b-r]

Ok, let's not assume (1), plenty of cameras are connected to law enforcement, upload everything to a random cloud service, are trivially accessible by others online, or are made by sketchy Chinese companies.

[infinite_spin]

Not a substantial difference, recordings of both kinds are uploaded to the internet all the time. So if we're not going to forbid one, then I don't see a significant enough reason to forbid the other. What it seems like is that you offer your trust for one situation, because you benefit from it, but are unwilling to trust the other, because you don't. This seems like selfishness, especially after years of being told there is no presumption of privacy in public spaces.

From my vantage, this appears to be a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. If you support filming in public spaces, but believe restricting that to only those you trust, then this is hypocrisy.

[smokedetector1]

I believe NYC cops should be able to have guns. I dont want guns to be widely accessible in NYC.

I’m comfortable with armed security at an airport. I’m less comfortable at a supermarket.

absolute rules only hold in math. in life, almost everything is a matter of degree and of details. that doesnt make it hypocrisy

[infinite_spin]

We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights. When we say some people have those rights more than others, we destroy equality under our laws, at the very root of our system. I think it muddies the water to call these "absolute" rules, they're clearly up for interpretation, but what shouldn't be up for interpretation is their applicability to all, in "absolute". If you're going to say "rules for thee but not for me", then we view these rules in a fundamentally different way.

[smokedetector1]

Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

Children have different labor restrictions than adults.

Police have different gun access than civilians.

Businesses pay a different set of taxes than individuals.

And allowing businesses to do camera surveillance when you enter their property is in no way the same as allowing everyone to videotape each other at all times covertly and without consent. I really can't understand what process of reasoning could even get you there, besides "equal rights absolutism," which makes no sense.

[infinite_spin]

> Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

How did you arrive at this statement from "We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights"? Seems like you're making an appeal to extremes.