this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
95 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40269 readers
567 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can't really say that when it is an always listening device. Can't really not use it if someone around you has one
Unfortunately we live in a world where people often have the right to do things that we personally disapprove of.
Then your original comment means nothing. Also, two-party consent is pretty common
It's not universal. Where I live it's one-party consent.
OK? Again the comment of "Don't use it" is even more pointless if you live in a single party consent state.
But my comment about how people have the right to do things you personally disapprove of is even more pointful.
meanwhile, literally in the headline:
no one is saying you don't have "the right" to wear this Spyware Pendant in your one-party consent state.
people are saying it's creepy and you're jumping in defending it with "well, technically, it's not illegal, depending on state law". you're just completely missing the point entirely.
this is like, if someone wrote an article about how people are annoyed by someone microwaving fish in the office cafeteria, you chimed in with "well they can simply quit and find a different job where people don't microwave fish at the office".
Okay, we're in agreement then.
yeah, no, we still disagree. I think you are missing the point completely, and continually.
general protip: if the conversation is about some behavior being creepy or weird or against social mores, and you jump in talking about the legality of it, you are missing the point, and also contributing to the creepiness.
for another example, upskirt photography was legal in the US until 2004 (at least at the federal level, state laws seem to have trickled in around the same timeframe)
hop in a time machine back to 2000, and imagine there's a digital camera that's marketing itself as being very easy to attach to your shoe in order to take surreptitious upskirt photos.
people say "wow that's a fucking creepy product" and you jump in to say that technically it's not illegal, and people have the right to attach cameras to their shoes. and if a woman is wearing a skirt in a crowd of people, and sees a guy with a camera on his shoe, she has the right to walk away from him. that is technically true, and also completely misses the actual point.
if you think upskirt photos are a bad analogy, here's a reddit thread from 2 weeks ago about a gynecologist wearing the "Meta Ray-Ban" sunglasses that have a built-in camera.
Okay, then, we're in disagreement. But I'm still able to use it, so.
Call it creepy if you want, that's fine, that's your opinion. It's not infringing anyone's rights.
yeah. except when you're not.
because this "I can do whatever I want" Ron-Swanson-wannabe brand of libertarianism is very predictable.
if you go to a dinner party and the host notices your Spyware Amulet and says "turn that off or leave my house" would you respect their property rights? without pissing and moaning about it?
if a bar or restaurant banned them (like happened with Google Glass) would you respect that rule as well?
if you were on a date, and your date noticed and said "that's kinda creepy, would you mind turning it off?" would you do it? or would you start ranting about how it's not infringing on your date's rights?
Those places aren't public places, so of course I'd turn it off or leave.
If I was in public and someone told me to stop recording, I'd likely say "no." Hasn't that been a major point of pushback against police demanding that we not record them, for example?
No, that comment is pointless regardless. Of course people can do things I don't like. That was never in question. That does not mean they are free from consequences or societal repercussions.
You also have the right to smear shit on your face, but don't be surprised if no one wants to hang out with you.
Fortunately, you can punch them in the face to provide some badly needed attitude adjustment.