this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
1145 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
87515 readers
3332 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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.
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.
These hypothetical doctors almost certainly have a smartphone with them every time they enter the room. Why doesn't that trigger this loss of trust effect? That can certainly (and arguably more easily) secretly record audio and video.
I just thought it was interesting.
Smartphones haven't been called "pervert boxes". It's the implication of what someone that would buy and wear the glasses would also be able to do.
We implicitly trust doctors just because doctors are generally trustworthy for body things. At the same time, the pervert glasses are called pervert glasses because people have used them for that stuff and we implicitly distrust people that wear them because of the implication.
So if I see a doctor with pervert glasses on even go they are not recording, I'm immediately distrustful of their phone too. The trust of them being a doctor is immediately broken.
I hope I was clear, it's not if the phones can more easily record or not, it's the current general perception of those glasses and how it warps peoples perception of others.
I don't know how old you are, but when smartphones were first on the market there was real concern that people (presumably "perverts") would use them to take pictures of people without their knowledge. I recall that there was even a push for legislation to require smartphone cameras to make noises when taking a picture, in response to this concern.
And look at how you're describing them. "Pervert glasses". Are legally blind people who use this technology to better navigate the world "perverts"?
It seems like the real concern is that so-called smart glasses are new, not that they actually change much. If/When they become aa commonplace as phones, I'm guessing no one will even notice them, just as we do with everyone having a phone.
I was around when smartphones were introduced to the market, I had to learn how to use them and teach everyone on my family, and I don't recall the concern. Maybe I was too young to care.
In any case, I'm not against what you are presenting here not the technology itself, I'm just telling you why the trust is being broken. As you described it with phones, context matters, and the fact that the main glass producers right now are who they are is a massive factor on public perception.
In fact, I use glasses and it would be cool to have some AR on them. I hope that the huge negative perception of these glasses push others to create more security/privacy aware glasses and expand the market so people that have real use for them like blind people can make use of the technology without being subjected to the negative perception of the RayBan Meta glasses.
If we limited the use case to people with genuine visual impairment that would be fine. Or even made them dayglo orange so they stand out and people can at least be aware of them.
Creeps are already building an industry on ways to defeat the warning light. Trust has been lost out of the gate. And the opportunity for AI, facial recognition and other creepy tech is just around the corner - soon you'll have doxing, nudify and other reprehensible garbage running with these devices. watch.
creeps are going to creep, stop supplying them with better creep tools.
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.
If you'd actually read the comment you'd see they already answered this question