• lemmelemmy@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    15 hours ago

    “A German city”

    Fuck is wrong these people? Why can’t anyone title their articles like a normal human being…

    • anon_8675309@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Because if they said the name of the city, nobody would need to click. 100% of the information you would glean would be in the title.

  • Unknown_Crawler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I had a debate about this the other day. I very much think these are creepy and look bad, but this kind of surveillance tech has existed for a long time, not to mention the prevalence of cellphones. I don’t understand what banning smart glasses accomplishes. There is plenty of creeper tech recording stuff out there. Just seems like poorly thought out legislation. What if I wear my cellphone on a lanyard, would that be illegal? Isn’t there surveillance tech on public transport already? What expectations of privacy do people have?

    I think that any laws being made should focus on the broader concepts such as surveillance, privacy, consent, etc. This just seems like policy driven by people’s dislike of meta creeper glasses.

    *Seems spy tech is already illegal in germany so this ban doesn’t matter much

    • ZeDoTelhado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      18 hours ago

      From my perspective has to do with form factor more than anything else. These smart glasses at a glance are indistinguishable from regular glasses. A phone looks like a phone, so people know what’s up at a glance.

      • ÚwÙ-Passwort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Wow you must have really good eyesigth. My pixel7pro claims 30x zoom. At that distance i cant really tell what you are doing.

    • Glitterkoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Other camera tech existsing is not a valid argument that these should. These devices and such technology should be fought and opposed at every corner. Rather have the privacy/surveillance debate kickstarted with a ban on one than risk having them ‘normalized within society’ such that a ban would be unenforceable.

    • bandanawearingbanana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The thing is: I would get them too if I could afford it.

      For the headphone stuff which is quite cool tech actually, I don’t like wearing in ear headphones and they basically work as headphones without going into your ears. The Ai stuff seems honestly creepy but I’m sure they legally can’t force you to use it in Europe and the camera stuff seems okay.

        • saimen@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Using them to film others already is illegal by general privacy laws (hasn’t been tested in court yet though). This is about making it illegal to wear them.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            Why would you want to put the onus of proving something illegal was done on the victims?
            Banning pervert glasses solves the problem at the root. Plus it’s orders of magnitude more easy to prove someone wore them than proving something illegal was done with them.
            MPAA - make perverts afraid again ;)

            • gian
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Why would you want to put the onus of proving something illegal was done on the victims?

              Because someone is innocent until proven guilty maybe ?

              Banning pervert glasses solves the problem at the root. Plus it’s orders of magnitude more easy to prove someone wore them than proving something illegal was done with them.

              Maybe, but this way you ban them also in situation where they could be usefull.
              In a way you are punishing a technology instead of the people making bad use of it.

          • ÚwÙ-Passwort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            This! So much This! Next Step banning Cameras and Phones. Or like some Countries already have mandatory shuter sounds

            • gian
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              A shuter sound does nothing now that both cameras and phones with a decent zoom

      • ÚwÙ-Passwort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The filming is already illegal. Small Cameras exist. Phones with massives zooms exist. Smart glasses are not the Problem. Espacially as ther probably will be a generall ban meaning smartglases without camera will be banned too