We should together stop calling devices which film in dressing / locker rooms smart.

These devices record video & sound track serve Ads and do Data fusion

What if you took a cam corder to a locker room? People would be upset, that is not allowed. That would not be nice. This is not nice either

Is the issue with person A videoing person B that a) B doesn't know they're being filmed b) B knows it and doesn't like it c) something else. I think likely b) so now we get to is whether A's conduct legal. If A is located in a public place, e.g., a public sidewalk, they can legally film whatever they can see. They can do this using a phone, Meta glasses, a camera on a tripod, etc. For example, A could stand on the sidewalk in front of your your house and legally film you through an open window. Kinda creepy but not illegal.

What does this have to do with WhatsApp?

Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.

We need to go further and ban mini camera module for raspberry pi zero. Imeagine someone can record you with this stuff...

How fo you think we can go about this the politicians are not in our pocket

> He did harass them a bit.

Maybe I'm too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He's asking Meta employees questions, doesn't seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn't exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn't there have to be some intimidation or humiliation or similar for it to be harassment? Or asking employees what they think of the products they develop and support is the harassment part?

> I'm looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!

Well, I’m looking forward of Meta going down. Now that would benefit the Internet.

After that, I think the fact that these glasses are allowed in the first place creates a problem that Meta as a platform cannot fix, because Meta is just one of the many many places where videos can be posted.

I think he could've gotten his point across without making her turn around and then putting his face behind her ass.

Well, it is and it isn't hypocrisy.

It is hypocrisy because Meta are knowingly creating a product that is perfectly suited for filming or photographing people without their knowledge. I find that it speaks ill of someone's character to pretend otherwise. And then they react badly when the very thing that these products enable happens to them. Demonstrating how this is a problem. They try to pretend it isn't a problem and then their actions demonstrate that it IS a problem.

It isn't because we do have laws that actually cover these things already. Of course, they're not the same across the world, law enforcement are not always aware of what the laws are, and this causes confrontations and sometimes overreach. There are also different legal systems that interpret laws differently. For instance in some legal systems the letter of the law carries more weight. In other legal systems the intent of the law is what matters.

There are two great risks here:

1) we pretend we can get by with existing laws. That the existing laws had enough foresight to meaningfully fulfil what the laws were intended to accomplish.

2) we can overreact and damage legitimate freedoms in our eagerness to solve an immediate problem.

For instance, where I live there is a law on the books that prohibits photographing someone being arrested. The law was well-meaning. It was there to protect people from being plastered all over the media until guilt has been determined in a court of law. But it would also prohibit someone from documenting police brutality during an arrest. So the law was never enacted because it failed to balance interests properly.

Right now, where I live, there is a real risk that rules about photography may become overly strict because politicians feel they have to demonstrate an ability to act. So they may end up passing laws that have unforeseen consequences while probably failing to make much of a difference anyway.

We know why these cameras pose a problem. Let's not insult each other's intelligence by pretending they are exactly like poking a traditional camera in someone's face. They're not and we should be able to agree on simple facts. But we also know that we need to have a public discussion about what we're going to do about this so we don't end up introducing draconian laws that take away freedoms we should have. For instance the freedom to document abuses of power, criminal activity, artistic expression etc.

We should be thankful for the small mercy they their manta at least rhymes.

> rules for thee, but not for me

This is their theory of power, that the selected few get access to a state of exception (but you can lose it at any time, so don't slip up).

Trump and oligarchs broadly have offered this franchise to their most loyal.

But! I'd argue it is not precisely hypocrisy, because they never believed in a rules-based order in the first place. They just see a system they can exploit.

break things has always been right there in black and white.

Feel free to point out the hypochrisy. I'll remind you that sharing a video you took of someone without their consent is not the same as recording them and keeping the video strictly for yourself

Sorry but have you looked at AliExpress lately? You think glasses with hidden video cameras are something we have the ability to ban?

Meta has made the concept popular, but hardware feasibility already tipped the scales, these cameras are going to be ubiquitous and if not in glasses then in even more hidden formats like buttons and pinhole wearables.

I hate these glasses, but why do you need to ban them? Meta operates at scale, so it will only stay in this business if a considerable number of people buy this. Vote with your money. There are legitimate uses for camera glasses (journalism, action sports, etc.).

Yes, having a taste of their own medicine.