Hacker News Reader

Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

> I think that’s a reasonable characterisation of what people think of these devices.

It's not a reasonable characterization of the people that wear these devices, and that's what the sentence is implying.

> Even if not strictly for perving it’s still seriously uncool to go around pointing a camera at people 100% of the time.

Isn't it great, then, that these glasses don't do that?

Years ago I lived in a country where your type of comment is precisely what much of society said about smartphones. Taking one out in a social event brought a lot of angry stares.

Welcome to that demographic.

View on HN

> Isn't it great, then, that these glasses don't do that?

As long as there’s a lens on them the perception remains. Ala panopticon. Particularly the idea that not knowing when you are being watched means you must assume you are being watched all the time. In the case of your glasses this maps 1 to 1. Your camera is there, it is pointing forwards at all times. We do not know what you are or are not filming.

Regarding your smart phone analogy. Which seems to make the point that you shouldn’t argue against the negative aspects of something that may later become popular, I have a story too. Before smart phones were a thing, my school attempted to ban the ‘camera phone’. Which was a pretty reasonable thing to do in that context and at that time. History shows that this was a good idea, even if the levee broke later with the smart phone which has been an absolute negative in school hours.

> Isn't it great, then, that these glasses don't do that?

Are the cameras somehow removable? Is there an obvious lens cap? If not, then everyone in your field of view is at the business end of a camera lens all of the time, and might as well be filming.

Even if I trust the wearer of these glasses to not be constantly recording, I certainly don't trust the manufacturer of them.

What country is that, sounds amazing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com