Em 
If you own glasses that record people without their consent, we can't be friend, and please don't talk to me.
Bo Morgan@Em0nM4stodon What about recording ICE and police?
@neptune22222 Use your phone.
@Em0nM4stodon What if my glasses are FOSH, secure and private?
@neptune22222 If you're filming people without their knowledge and consent (unless it's in the public interest like recording police work), this is still wrong and creepy.
And even for public interest reporting, your camera should be visible.
Right, I'm just making the point that whether it is a phone or glasses makes no difference.
@neptune22222 Yes, it does. People don't assume you are filming them when you are just wearing glasses. Most people with a rectangle pointed at them will suspect you might be filming them. The fact that it's disguised as glasses to record people without their knowledge matters a lot.
People walk around with their phones in front of them, as if they are video chatting, all of the time.
If someone is secretly recording video and audio of other people, that's creepy, independent of form factor.
廃墟猫 🐈🌈🐈⬛🐈🐈⬛🐈⬛@neptune22222 @Em0nM4stodon I mean, if you want to video someone with your phone, you literally have to point it at them. It at least gives people the suspicion that they might be being filmed. To say that's the same as just wearing glasses is ridiculous.
Edit: add that most people understand phones can video them, whilst many are unaware that some glasses can.
I didn't say that phones are the same as glasses.
I'm saying that wearing glasses that clearly have cameras with computers in them is an important thing to allow for medical reasons.
Don't be a creep. We can agree on that.
Policing other people's use of technology is harder to agree on.
It's kind of like arguments against encryption because we should be able to more easily catch criminals. It's already against the law to record people secretly in some states. If people are breaking the law, the question is, how can the law be enforced?
@neptune22222 @Em0nM4stodon well you actually did.
There's also recorded cases of people using meta raybans to record people in situations where it would have be really obvious with a phone camera, but people were unaware of the glasses cameras.
Bo Morgan (@[email protected])
@[email protected] Right, I'm just making the point that whether it is a phone or glasses makes no difference.
@neptune22222 @Em0nM4stodon also, which glasses "clearly" have cameras in? Most are designed to look like normal glasses.
I'm not sure what is currently available. I'm planning to work on FOSH (Free Open Source Hardware) glasses that are secure and private to provide an assistive tool for low vision people to improve their ability to deal with blind spots. I think it will be obvious that there are cameras and computers in the glasses that I plan to build. To be clear, I'm not planning to build or release my designs in the next 2 years. At this point, I am just seeing the need for a public that allows people to use computers in glasses for medical reasons. I don't like Apple because it is a monopolistic company, but the Apple VisionPro is useful to some blind and low vision people, so I wouldn't hold it against them for using those glasses. They are also an example of glasses that have cameras and computers.
If you're recording people without their consent, it doesn't matter if you're using glasses or a phone. That is what I said. I didn't say that there is no difference between glasses and a phone.
It is against the law, in some states, to record someone secretly. This is true independent of the technology used. It doesn't matter if you use a phone or glasses in this context as well.
If someone is breaking the law, we need ways to enforce the law.
@neptune22222 @Em0nM4stodon it does matter. In one case, it's fairly obvious you're being recorded, and you can take action. In the other, it's likely you'd have no idea you're being recorded and thus you can't take any action.
It's a blinding obvious difference, and if you don't recognise that I can't believe you're arguing in good faith.
Edit: stupid autocorrect
I think we're arguing two different points. I agree that it is more obvious in some cases when you are being recorded with a phone. I'm not arguing that point.
I'm arguing that if you are recording police or ICE or anyone in public, you do not need consent, legally. You might be a creep, but it is an important right to record the police and ICE in public without their consent to protect democracy. It doesn't make a difference what type of technology you use to record the police or ICE in public, as long as you are following the law. To follow the law, you are not allowed to record secretly without their knowing. You don't need their consent, but you do need to somehow advertise the fact that you are recording. Whether you use glasses or a phone doesn't matter, but you do need to display somehow the fact that you are recording. How you display this fact will likely be different in each case, but which technology you use to record the police or ICE doesn't matter.