Does the author assume that the reader doesn't know what Australia is? "Australia! You know; the place with kangaroos, shrimps on barbies, and toilets that flush the other way around!"
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
460 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
88659 readers
3715 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
AI generated? More likely than you'd care to admit!
Confused me so much. For some reason I thought Kylie minogue was behind the push for this.
Also, the country famous for its Nanny State laws.
I dont know any of those names and assumed that they are convicted perverts/pedophiles or sth, who are publicly known in the anglosphere
When/if you get kids, you'll learn all about Bluey. Arguably the best kids show ever.
Don't forget the drop bears and sasquatches with enormous capacity for recreational drugs.
Australia saw smart glasses and said: what if Google Glass, but with better cameras and worse boundaries? A workplace ban is understandable where confidential data is everywhere. But calling it world leading feels premature: the real challenge is writing privacy rules that survive the next pair of glasses too, not just banning today’s model.
Ban those and ban Google products.
the real challenge is writing privacy rules that survive the next pair of glasses too, not just banning today’s model
This phrasing is one you seem to use quite a lot, and your website has some pretty prominent use of AI art. Are you using AI in your posts & comments?
Anyway, for me the real challenge is coming up with a way to protect privacy vis a vis these glasses without restricting genuine public-interest video recording (e.g. recording police or someone threatening you) and protecting photographers' right to create their art. I'll just copy/paste a comment I made a few days ago in a similar thread:
As a photographer I’m a firm believer in the right to take photos and videos in public, for both artistic and documentary purposes. There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place and so objections to all forms of video recording in public places feel like dramatic overreach. The nebulous idea of a general “right to privacy” when in a public space should not override the right of artists to create art, or of anyone to document events/behaviours taking place in public.
But covertly recording using glasses that have no indicator or an inadequate indicator* in private spaces like changing rooms, or publishing the recordings of a conversation that the other party did not know was being recorded, feels like an overreach in the other direction. Banning devices that covertly record video from spaces where it’s deemed inappropriate feels like a pretty good balance.
* From what I’ve heard, these Facebook glasses have an indicator that is quite easy to remove aftermarket, and even if you don’t remove it, in brightly lit areas it’s pretty hard to tell it’s on anyway.
As a photographer I’m a firm believer in the right to take photos and videos in public, for both artistic and documentary purposes.
sure, no problem with that, just be careful.
There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place
that's blatantly false. However much you deny it, there is an expectation of privacy in public. we are not going out to have a chance to be acting on your photos and videos. we are going out because we need to, to go to work, the shop or to the doctors.
it would be right to say, there is no expectation of being invisible, or that nobody will see me do my things on the street. and of course if we do something silly, people will see that and judge us. but that is not what you said. there is an expectation of not having a permanent record of our own lives if we don't want, and anything standing in the way of that needs to go.
that being said, yes, you can take photos and videos in public. granted that there are no unconsenting people in the scene, or that they will not be recognizable in the resulting images. otherwise dont be surprised if you are being judged.
recognizability does not only mean, whether do I know that person, or whether the face is visible. photographers are notorious for uploading their images to tech companies that have the capabilities and the practice to do their magic on photos to recognize people by their other attributes.
when that photography creeps into voyeurism there are definite laws. it's ridiculous that they throw out 'but in public you have no expectation -' naw, how about they don't take pics and vid of kids and people without their consent.
there will always be creeps, and those creeps will always be willing to abuse their rights to infringe upon others. stop giving the creeps better hardware and telling us all to accept it.
granted that there are no unconsenting people in the scene, or that they will not be recognizable in the resulting images
Nope. That's neither the law nor the ethical requirement. If it were, the entire genres of photojournalism and street photography would not exist. Things may change if it's for commercial purposes such as an advertising campaign, or if it forms part of a pattern of stalking or harassment or similar, but the general baseline is exactly as I said: there is no expectation of privacy in public.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Stop yapping. Ban it is
load more comments
(1 replies)
That’s an…odd way to describe an entire country.
Yea. What about fckn Skippy!
And the murder spiders, murder snakes, murder birds, murder fish and serial killers. I hate how we've been turned into the Bluey country, we have so much more diversity!
If it makes you feel better, we sold Bluey to the poms, and now they are making bank from it 😀.
It's the Australian way.
It does not
That hurts as much as seeing Holden go under so Gina could make a few billion extra
load more comments
(2 replies)
Aussie here, I don't think that this is a bad move at all. The meta glasses are at a price point that makes them rarely seen in the wild, however Kmart (yes it still exists here, but different owners) has recently had a sale of $20 "recording glasses" that can easily have their recording LED turned off and with a few modifications you wouldn't even know they had a camera.
I can understand them doing this in government facilities, as some won't even allow you to have your phone in certain spaces.
I do think with tigher guardrails (detection of environments, like if a set of meta glasses enter a restroom or what looks like a restroom it should disable recording entirely.) it could be allowed but we really don't need to encourage kids that secret recordings are ok.
How would you implement it? On a glass that the user controls (root), it would be impossible. Of course, I do not like bathroom recordings, but there's no sane way to block them.
Of course, I do not like bathroom recordings, but there’s no sane way to block them.
sure there is, ban them.
it'd be insane to simply throw your hands up and say 'well can't do anything about it'. stop giving the creeps better creeping tools.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I see TimTams mentioned and I gotta say how good they are. If you haven’t tried them, you need to. So good!
They're overpriced though. I recommend the hilariously-badly-named Aldi alternatives, Just Divine. They're like 90% as good as the name brand, at literally half the price.
Don't go the Woolies home brand ones though. Those are terrible.
100% agree the Woolies home brand ones are downright atrocious. Since I was diagnosed coeliac it’s been nice to see Arnott’s do a gluten free version but those are very pricey and probably only 80-90% as good as the originals. The rest of the Arnott’s GF range is pretty great though.
Tim tams go on sale at half price every few weeks at colesworth, you should never pay full price for them.
I want to try some Vegemite; don't worry I have a large jar of Marmite in the fridge, I know what I want.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I find them overrated. It's just sugary junk food.
load more comments
(4 replies)
"I went into the shop and said 'do you sell pervert glasses? I wanna buy some pervert glasses'. So I bought a pair. And I was wearing ma pervies, and walking down the street. But they didn't work! Everything looks the same. All the people.. no different! Still dressed. I mean. What are they supposed to do? Bloody waste of money!"
You gotta jury rig up your pervies to your slop machine for realtime sexual harassment, it's a real joke of a system at the moment
The only non-perv use case I have ever imagined for these has been “I’m taking something apart and need to look back at how I did it to put it back together”. But you can just strap a go pro to your head or put your phone on a stand and not look like a perv.
Like the world leading social media ban, how's that working out for them?
I know how we solve this; no wireless communication at all; the glasses are dial up 56k only. And not that fancy V.92; I’m talking 56k flex.
and the dialup speaker needs to be near the ears. The screech lets you know it's working! https://soundcloud.com/stephthegeek/dial-up-modem-01
As a fan of Aussie dash cams im kinda sad. I can only imagine the videos we'd get with Aussies walking around with a dashcam on their face.
That's kind of the whole point of the ban.
To deprive us of watching crazy situations. I thought it was to stop pervs.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›