That's really not a good comparison. When you screenshare, even when you forget, you are the one who initiated the action. You also have the power to stop it when you realize it. Neither is the case with these glasses.

If everyone did it, welcome to 1984 beyond Orwell's wildest imagination, where the Flock cameras have legs and look human. Who needs an elaborate entrapment operation when you can observe up close how someone twitches upon mention of Dear Leader's name?

You are thinking of a very shallow America's Funniest Home Videos scenario without considering that there is a lot of daily-life scenarios that rely on the assumption that you are not being filmed by some rando.

- In a lot of places where there is still stigma on various health issues, this kind of implicit privacy could be the difference between people seeking help or not.

- We give off a lot of small but probably "confidential" signals just because we can reasonably assume we are not being recorded. From simple allusions during casual conversation to maybe a quick still frame of someone's notes. What would've been an innocuous statement could become NDA violations when recorded at the fidelity usually reserved for deposition hearings.

- And speaking of innocuous, as anyone who's spent any length of time in the internet would know, it's so easy to take thirty seconds of a two-hour conversation out of context. Now you are giving everyone an eat-all-you-can buffet of your life to take out of context. Company valuations have been decided from less.

All in all, these perv glasses would make society more guarded and less open, and that in an age when people already have a hard time forming relationships.

> Wouldn't that change if "everyone" did it?

No. It would just make the situation totally intolerable.

There's a novel that deals with this. I think it's called the light of other days by Arthur c. Clarke and Stephen Baxter