> It is not up to you to deprive anyone their right to use them.

I don't see anyone saying that people don't have the right to use them. I see people saying that they have the right to avoid being anywhere near the people who use them and to disapprove of those people. Which is just as much of a right as the right to wear spy glasses.

>I don't think that's fair. Smartglasses have legitimate purposes.

I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.

Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case -- eg: someone who is using them to assist with a disability, or for research, or something.

Even most dash cams don't stream to Meta -- they just record the last _n_ hours and you need to know to save off the video if you're in an crash / incident. In other words, most of the time no privacy is violated, and the only potential privacy violation occurs during an incident.

Even policy body cams, which I wholeheartedly support, have some pretty strong downsides: currently, if you're at the end of your rope, having the worst day of your life, and in your dishevelment turn a speeding ticket into a BATLEO, you're famous forever for being a lunatic. Maybe the rest of the time you're a good person, and you can learn from this and move on. Except now you have a permanent albatross around your neck. This is a secondary penalty that the justice system did not intend, and has no answer for.

I can't deprive someone of their right to use them, but I can refuse to interact with someone who's wearing them. This seems like a fair natural consequence. Feel free to wear them, but I won't speak to you when you do.

So happy to live in Germany. I couldn’t care less if your gadget can be useful in some cases. I don’t want it close to me

dash cams are local and pointing at the road, not everywhere.

body cams are local and mostly used by law enforcement to guarantee they are not abusing their power.

glassholes are connected to the cloud. you may have the right to record on public space, i have the right to remain anonymous in the crowd and not be constatly targeted by an advertisement company.

Even if 1% of the corner cases are legit uses (blind people having the glasses describe the world around them is fantastic.) 99% of the people using them are assholes that deserve to be put in the ground and the glasses smashed.

What are the reasonable and legitimate uses of smart glasses with cameras in that can record without the subject being aware?

I think the only legitimate use is for spies? And by commoditizing them it makes spies slightly less obvious?

Oh blind people too. That one makes sense.

I could see an argument being made for smart glasses that keep everything local.

But smart glasses that send everything to The Cloud? Burn them all. Especially if they're from fricken' Meta.

> Smartglasses have reasonabl eand legitimate uses. People also use bodycams that record continuously, such as for legal reasons. People have a right to record in public, such as if they feel at risk. Are you going to go after car cameras next?

None of those default to sharing your recording with anyone else, let alone with no practical way to opt out.

>It is not up to you to deprive anyone their right to use them.

Why is it a right?

>Are you going to go after car cameras next?

No. A car cannot follow me into a building very easily. It cannot turn as quickly as a human head.

>Any American who has any opposition to public recording is violating the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American.

lmao

If you walk up to me and shove a camera in my face I'll get very loud and very angry with you very quickly. That's kind of paradoxical, if you intended the camera to make you feel safer. I don't think I'm in the minority.

> People have a right to record in public

I do not want to live in such a dystopian country. No this right shouldn't exist and I'm glad it doesn't in my country.

> If none of this makes sense to you, wait till standalone cameras become much smaller to where they become a smartbutton -- what will you do then?

Why are you against killing? Wait till you don't need to hit them but can accelerate metal pieces at them -- what will you do then?

> Any American who has any opposition to public recording is fighting the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American.

Anyone who is against X deserves not to be protected by law. "First they came for the communists..."