Technology

The cameras on poles can't see literally everywhere, and can't physically follow you around.

And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.

MetaCreepSpecs don't have any such restrictions.

The cameras on poles are meant for public spaces and security. Meta glasses are for whatever the fuck the wearer will intend the recordings for for private use.

Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.

These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.

They both need to go.

I trust individuals with a camera or two far more than I trust the government with cameras everywhere.

I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable

Camera's on poles are obvious, they are mostly immobile apart from some pan tilt zoom, they are subject to privacy and data retention laws, they are announced with signage, they serve a specific public or private interest (like security), they are some auditable entity's respontibility and they don't have anywhere near the resolution you can get on the ground with a camera strapped to your face.

The guy with the meta glasses is a huge questionmark on all of that, including intentions and when they are actually recording.

This is what I don't get either. We literally have dozens of various camera options monitoring us in public, from random video doorbells to store CCTV, state/police CCTV, Google Maps cars, people on their phones, police officers and even random hired security thugs posing around with wearable cameras, drones, you name it... but the problem is cameras built into glasses?

Most European countries have actually codified that one has no expectations of privacy in public - that is, one may be recorded while out and about. Of course there's legislations about harassment - e.g. following someone with a camera and specifically recording them, in an attempt to harass or threaten them - and what essentially constitutes as blackmail ("I'll remove this video of you if you pay me"), so people should be using the recourse for those crimes, not criminalising a new product category.

Just owning a camera didn't make upskirt photos legal, nor does using a Meta camera glass make harassment legal.

Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.

Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.