Yesterday I asked the AZ community why so many people would want to buy these glasses other than for pervy and malicious purposes. Thank you to those who responded. I wasn't flooded with ideas for helpful uses though.

It seems there are genuine concerns about this (yet another) surveillance gadget. The one that worries me the most is how it can be used in exploitative ways against children and other vulnerable groups. If you are also concerned you may want to sign the petition.

Early reports of misuse have centred on women and children. A TikToker in the US was caught filming women in public with smart glasses and uploading the footage without their consent. RMIT's Dr Dana McKay warns the early reports of misuse are already targeting women, and that our privacy laws are nowhere near ready for cameras on people's faces. Parents commenting on Kmart's social media have raised the same question repeatedly: nothing prevents someone wearing the glasses into a change room, a swimming pool, a playground or a school gate.

For more details go to the link.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

There are 50,000 different camera glasses on Amazon, no idea how many are on Temu etc. I have no idea why Kmart is being singled out.

These style of glasses are not going away.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Humanity is going deeper than ever into the creepzone.

[–] Denvil@piefed.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Impossible to do anything without one of our almighty corporate overlords catching wind of it and exploiting it for profit.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Resistance.

If we continue to be passive consumers for every privacy-destroying and potential exploitative gadget & system, we are just complicit with techno dystopia. At some point there will be glasses available that see through clothes.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This sounds to me like classic Technophobia. We've already normalised body cams to the point where we are outraged when law enforcement isn't recording and the kids working at Woolies are wearing them. You can buy personal body cameras also on Amazon that look like tie pins/lapels and are far more subtle than these glasses.

It is not against the law to record someone in a public setting. If you are walking down the street, you will already be recorded by dozens of cameras. I don't see the controversy. If someone is recording you in your home against your will, they are already breaking the law.

The silly thing is I don't actually care enough about these glasses specifically to be seen as defending them. I would prefer not being recorded everywhere I went. But that ship sailed 40 years ago. Unless we are going to make CCTV, Dashcams, bodycams, hell even phone cameras illegal, we are stuck with a world where you can already expect to be on camera pretty-much wherever you go.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Put whatever label you like on it and call me silly. Your examples show we are already in a technodystopia.

You don't address my strongest concern, which should be yours too as a parent. These glasses can be used in exploitative ways targeting vulnerable groups. Because they don't all have the flashing lights they can be misused in environments where children and people with disabilities, for example, do not recognise that they are camera glasses.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Cameras that I see as worse than the glasses already exist. Just google "spy camera" and you'll see lots of options that come in all sizes and shapes. Cameras integrated into caps you wear, cameras disguised as pens or clocks, cameras about 1cm wide that can be hidden just about anywhere in a room, others you wear around your neck as a necklace, the list is endless. Kmart sells a camera on their site that could easily be used for abusive purposes. Or it could be used to watch over and soothe a baby.

I see no point in being riled up by one style of camera being sold at one retailer. Do I want randoms filming my kids? No. Can I stop them? Also no. Unless we make a serious cultural change to our society, it's decades too late. The simple fact is that anyone can stand in a public place like a playground and film kids. They can do it secretly with a camera embedded into an item of clothing. They can do it blatantly with a giant television camera mounted on their shoulder. This is perfectly legal - you can't stop them. All you can do is remove your kids from that public place.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

I take your point.

Do you ever wonder why our current 'developed' societies have such a fixation on photographing, videoing, surveilling, snooping? It's like people can't just live life, they have to be recording even the most trivial situations. Call me old-fashioned.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I have no idea why Kmart is being singled out.

I think the answer to this would be A) because Kmart is more easily targeted, and B) Kmart pulling the product would have an outsized impact.

Kmart is more easily targetable because they're a well-recognised brand that operates only in Australia and New Zealand, and it's a small proportion of their shops in NZ. So a public opinion campaign by an Australian organisation like GetUp has a chance of creating real pressure on the company. This wouldn't be the case for companies like Amazon or Temu that sell to many countries.

As for Kmart's impact, as a large retailer they presumably have capacity to sell quite a lot of these glasses in Australia, but I think probably more important is that a prominent retail chain in Australia selling a product has an impact in normalising that product. You can buy all sorts of stuff on the internet, for example the 'peptides' that people have been ordering lately (though who knows what they actually receive). If you see a product 'in real life' in a retail setting, though, I'd expect that to have some effect in legitimising the product in the public mind, compared to only seeing it online. That Kmart is selling a particularly cheap version of the product - under their own Anko brand - and thereby making the product more accessible could be an aggravating factor.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Kmart is more easily Targeted

Oh, snap! I see you!