this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026

152 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

87079 readers

5239 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

152

Woman Calls Out Doctor Wearing Smart Glasses During Consultation Where She Had To Take Off Her Clothes: 'They Need To Be Banned' (www.fashiontimes.co.uk)

submitted 1 hour ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 68 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

I can honestly put up with a lot, especially in a doctor's office. Hell it's the only place I'm okay with something up my ass. I would walk out if my doctor came in with those glasses. I will go and find a new doctor. There is no way I am okay with a personal camera in that exam room.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 61 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It’s not even a personal camera. The footage is uploaded to Facebook where they have humans categorize and tag it.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 14 points 52 minutes ago

[bums], [boobs], [other]

[+] joe@lemmy.world -33 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

I totally get what you're saying.

However, it is kind of funny (interesting?) that people will trust that there isn't a hidden camera in the exam room without question, but mistrust someone who has a camera openly displayed, but off, in the exam room. As if the reminder that cameras exist is what negates that trust, not the risk of being recorded.

This is more of a philosophical musing than a defense of wearing a camera into an exam room.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 45 points 59 minutes ago (1 children)

Without evidence, the idea that there's a hidden camera in the exam room is just paranoid speculation. By contrast, this was an actual visible camera in the exam room, and a camera that was obviously the doctor's own personal device. It makes sense to worry more about the camera you know is real.

[+] joe@lemmy.world -22 points 54 minutes ago (2 children)

It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?

[–] Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca 19 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved...

[–] zarathustrad@lemmy.world 7 points 25 minutes ago (1 children)

So, now you have to trust:

That the person is not intentionally recording you.
That they are not unintentionally recording you.

(Because if a camera is on, and eventually connected to the Internet, well... I should not have to explain how that can be an issue in this forum at least. We now have to trust the users tech literacy, and security diligence.)

[–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 17 minutes ago

I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.

[–] laz@pawb.social 16 points 58 minutes ago (2 children)

That's because there is generally implicit trust that there is no hidden cameras. The open display of a camera effectively destroys that trust. If everyone was always suspicious of there being hidden cameras everywhere, functioning in society would be pretty difficult.

[–] zarathustrad@lemmy.world 3 points 29 minutes ago

Well, you see, I need my hidden wearable camera to detect other hidden cameras...

[+] joe@lemmy.world -11 points 53 minutes ago (2 children)

Sure, but if a person doesn't trust their doctor to have a camera in their possession in the room, why would they trust that same doctor not to have one hidden?

[–] laz@pawb.social 9 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

That's what I'm saying. They have that trust and the visible camera would destroy it in an instant because it's expected to be private. You can't expect people to assume that there will be something that shouldn't be there and validate that fact.

[–] joe@lemmy.world -4 points 37 minutes ago

Does it matter whether the camera is on or off?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.

From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that's on their face, then you can't rule out that they'd do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.

At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn't come off suggesting otherwise.

[–] cenzorrll@piefed.ca 4 points 47 minutes ago

If you'd actually read the comment you'd see they already answered this question

[–] masterbaexunn@lemmy.world 5 points 58 minutes ago

It's neither funny nor interesting. Hope that helps

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 7 points 58 minutes ago (1 children)

I couldn't watch the tiktok because there were no subtitles so maybe I am missing something.

I don't understand how these glasses could be permitted in a medical setting. It's becoming more normal for medical offices here to record visits and use AI to transcribe the visit. Sure, there are concerns about those in terms of accuracy, and there is a risk of unauthorized access and systems failing, but there is a list of vetted products build to meet privacy and security requirements. Kinda the same way I am only permitted to use Copilot at work because the data is not sent back to be used in training models.

I don't believe Meta has any such programs or versions?

[–] EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml 6 points 35 minutes ago

Fuxk tiktok, twitter, meta and google all the fuck together.

Delete them all

Fucking duh

[+] NullPointerException@lemmy.ca -23 points 56 minutes ago (5 children)

I don’t like this “smart glasses are evil” sentiment. They would improve the lives of many people. I’ve seen demonstrations of its use for blind people. Even people simply travelling and having everything translated automatically would be nice. But, yeah, going into a restroom with them on, or not asking for authorization from the patient to use them, crosses a big red line.

[–] sanitation@lemmy.today 7 points 21 minutes ago

Nope. They are evil

[–] iamthetot@piefed.ca 3 points 10 minutes ago

The idea of them is incredible. I grew up watching sci fi galore with holographic AI personal assistants, and AR glasses, and 3D printers, etc. The idea of these technologies is amazing.

The reality of them is a little different. It's hard to get behind certain advancements when they are completely in the control of a handful of people on Earth who have more wealth than everyone else combined. It's impossible to ethically endorse these projects when the companies responsible have time and again proven themselves to be untrustworthy. And I mean, you shouldn't trust them with your name and age, let alone videos and pictures of you—and strangers!—naked in a doctor's office.

The technology and the possibilities are awesome and awe inspiring. The society we live in is not ready for them. Hell, much of the world still hasn't caught up with how to adequately regulate and legislate for the internet revolution that happened over thirty years ago, nevermind for smart glasses that can always be recording.

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

Any product created by a company that has demonstrated evil intent should be considered evil, even if there are legitimate valid uses. You have to trust not only the person using it, but also the company that controls what the device can/will do with or without the users constent.

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 37 minutes ago

I don't understand the "x-ray vision" comments. Am I out of the loop?