Because you think that "being able to track leadership of a country that knows that other countries may want to target them" does not mean "being able to track pretty much anyone"?

Or do you think that those cameras are less secure because the leadership is not good with their people?

I'm not sure I follow the criticism here.

▲

flockonus 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Anyone who has a mobile phone has been tracked by their phone provider forever, with the accuracy of a couple blocks. Smartphones only bring more trackers to the equation in the form of apps.

What's the material concern to tracking that glasses add?

	▲	metamet an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Surely the difference between location tracking (that still requires a warrant for the government to get access to, thus Stingrays) and the intimate visual processing and tagging that is derived from the likes of smart glasses is self explanatory, right? To that point, the difference between geolocation and video tracking and analysis (like Flock) seems pretty obvious to me. It's invasively panopticon.
	▲	Onavo 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can recognize a threat to national security without supporting the ideology behind it. It sounds like you are trying to to spread FUD around stronger privacy regulations. It would be a lot less funny when the shoe is on the other foot and it's not Iranian networks that's being compromised. Are you perhaps a vendor of mass surveillance systems like your username's namesake?