Years ago people discussed if having a mobile next to the body could be bad for health, specially brain, now we see doctors using smart glasses with wifi 5 and 5g mobile network.
That’s a weird a.i.-generated doctor. O.o
There is no question that this violates doctor patient confidentiality and damages trust. Fuck no. Even if they fucking have to not take off their clothes NO.
Yes, dipshits like that should be banned from the medical profession.
That seems like a HIPAA violation because it’s unknown eyes and ears in the exam room.
It is really upsetting that we can’t get actually good “smart glasses”. Like, glasses that have a little screen projected on the lenses and can do searches and stuff for you on the fly, or display text like a script or something, or watch a video, or see your music playlist…
Why does everyone trying to make “smart glasses” feel compelled to include a fucking hidden camera?? And now it’s even worse with the AI riddle surveillance state we are living in. I won’t even be a little surprised to find out that Meta’s pervert glasses are being co-opted by Flock to add even more cameras to their “safety” network…
I want smart glasses like a smart watch: a quick glance to see a message, workout data, maybe GPS directions, that’s about it.
No camera needed.
Those do exist. They’re just expensive. Look up the Even Realities G2 smart glasses. They have a monochrome heads up display, conversation analysis, live translate, notifications from your phone, time, date ect. Oh, and there is no camera on them by design (the developers understand and acknowledge that a camera is a huge privacy risk). They also have an open SDK and developer tools so that you can make your own apps for them. They’re kind of like real life E.D.I.T.H. glasses.
Do you know if the microphone can be disabled? Or the features that use it? Basically I’d want glasses like these that primarily react to inputs I make on my phone or show things the phone can figure out based on my location etc. I’d want to be 100% certain no audio is being recorded or even uploaded to a translation service.
The microphone can’t be disabled unfortunately. The developers claim that all audio recordings are deleted immediately after the glasses provide a response, however their privacy policy does mention that some necessary personal data may be processed by third parties in countries like China, Japan, and the U.S.
Their privacy policy doesn’t actually say who has access to user data.
So you want a screen in front of your eyes, that you need to pull out your other screen to control?
Yeah, it’s unfortunate but until we get robust privacy laws (which won’t happen) none of this shit can ever be trusted. Anyone arguing to put more cameras and microphones into our lives at this point should be met with an ass beating. If our politicians were worth anything those laws would have been in place before it ever got this far. Instead they’re all bought and paid for.
Why? None of that would improve my life in any way.
Well since you’re the only person that matters, let’s do things your way.
Thank you
People travel, which can make access to good screens difficult (think flights, busses).
Such glasses are not cheap, but provide virtually unlimited screen space wherever you are.Jesus christ, take a fucking break from your God damn screen.
Yeah it’s a shame, I’d be up for some augmented reality. Except it would mostly be ads, and too many people can’t be trusted not to be pervy with the cameras.
For me, the hypothetical appeal of Smart Glasses would be to identify the things in my environment and point them out. That requires a camera. I’m not remotely interested in having augmented reality glasses enough to give a corporation my data like that.
Or you could just buy a guide book that someone painstakingly put together to help you understand your environment.
The confrontation, shared in a video that has circulated on Reddit, centres on a simple but uncomfortable question: should a doctor be wearing glasses with a built-in camera while examining a patient in an intimate clinical setting?
I hate it when articles do this. Firstly, answer is NO. secondly there’s nothing uncomfortable about the question itself because answer is a NO, third there’s no need to frame a clear violation of privacy as a question. If it’s not acceptable to pull out a phone and start recording in that situation, then it’s clearly not acceptable to wear those glasses.
“Is genocide OK if after you sweep away all those no-good ‘Undesireables’ you get to build a seaside villa and resort AND you now get to pump oil out of the ground from where those peoples’ homes once were? …Some experts say YES! And we agree! Here’s why…”
-articles like these
Movie trailer voice;
This hour, a new sensation will sweep across the globe, the creators of “top 10 lists” return to ask the questions that nobody else will in “Articles Like These”, staring A.L. Clanker (coming soon to screens near you).
If the glasses were hipaa compliant, they could be used as a medical tool, but I would never trust Zuck’s glasses to be like that.
deleted by creator
Yeah, a hands free smart phone in this case. More sanitary. I never mentioned an llm, but being able to image a rash and quickly cross reference it with a database could be useful.
They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.
Check that man’s hdd for sure
Check that man’s hhd for sure
I know this is nitpicky and I’m sorry but… “hdd” not “hhd”. But probably in 2026 its an ssd anyway.
Fair, typo and I’ll fix
…its an ssd anyway.
It depends on how much video he has. HDDs arent cheap but SSDs are expensive and don’t add much in a data archiving scenerio.
Actually, we are probably both wrong and it’s the nand flash on his phone. The kind of tool bag buying meta pervert glasses probably isn’t actually a big techie…
I can’t believe that image in the thumbnail came from official Meta marketing. I have to imagine that Jared the Subway guy didn’t make the cut because he didn’t look creepy enough.
Lets not forget that this product is marketed towards the type of male that unironically identifies with Patrick Bateman.
Removed by mod
9 out of 10 doctors choose not to wear pervert-glasses.
But that one guy…
“9 out of 10 dentists recommend not smashing your teeth so I cant upcharge you for more replacement teeth… But that one guy… IM that one guy! Mwahahaha! Gimme yohr money!”
do you think there are only 10 doctors in the world?
Is this sarcasm?
Can’t you tell?
She should have slapped those glasses off his face. Legally speaking it should be fine to punch anyone wearing pervert glasses in the face.
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
Or actual journalism.
If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.Nah that would be illegal
innocemt until proven guilty. The only time they can reveal the person’s name aand face is if theyre convicted of something AND theyre an adult.
Also a bonus if he does get convicted of this and his name and face gets revealed is that other people who recognize his name and face and who have ALSO been his victims can also then come forward and put additional charges on him. And who knows maybe he has so many victims itll be like a liife sentence when everyone finishes dumping more and more charges onto him.
Humans have an a amazing ability to be idiotic so you cant always blame with malice what can be explained by idiocracy…but iif he is malicious? Ya throw the book at him. And more.
Do you know what slander is?
Do you know what habeous corpus is?
Would you like to be arrested and not given the same rights and protections?
Maybe you should get arrested by ICE and see what its like.
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.
It’s not even a personal camera. The footage is uploaded to Facebook where they have humans categorize and tag it.
Exactly. There is zero way for those glasses to remain HIPAA-compliant, because everything you do is uploaded to Meta’s servers.
I remember a bunch of DateLine exposeés about doctors who used hidden cameras to record patients.
What does it matter if that camera was sold by Facebook?
How about we accept neither as being appropriate.
That’s my point: Neither are and yet this doctor wasn’t arrested over this like if he had a different hidden camera
Because if a doctor puts up a hidden camera only the doctor (and anyone they might personally share the footage with) can see it. With those glasses everything goes through Meta’s servers and we don’t know who has access to the footage.
So is say the scope of the invasion of privacy is the difference.
its invading privacy. a Patient can use hidden camera,often times doctors/ other employee makes condescending comments of patients while they are under anesthesia about the patients.
Every slopper should just be killed. They are already p-zombie puppet terminals for some silicon valley billionaire, so its only biologically murder.
[bums], [boobs], [other]
[Hot dog] [Not hot dog]
and it also trains thier shitty AI.
I will go and find a new doctor.
right after I punch Dr. M. Olester in the face.
Seriously. How many patients did this guy record before someone noticed? He needs to be killed. Sloppers can’t communicate anymore-they just ask grok what that meant and Claude how to win the argument. Language now skips the human and is entirely mediated by corporate machines. the only thing left is violence.
don’t stop there, call the fucking regulatory agencies for the hospital and the doc. the hospital is obviously at enormous risk for the liability this moron is opening up and probably would like to fire him before the lawsuits land on them.
Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass.
Psssshhhhhh! Prude!
Btw, I’m not defending these doctors with the glasses. Fuck that shit! That should absolutely be banned.
I’m just saying anal is awesome! You’re missing out.
Don’t walk out until you’ve left the slopper needing a doctor.
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.
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.
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?
the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved…
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
They still send data when they’re not recording. In either case, the doctor needs to be sued.
“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.
Sued for what?
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
That’s the thing though, it’s multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don’t just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of “accidental” system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.
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.)
I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.
I want to believe you’re earnest and not some trolling chud here to promote the tech.
the ratios speak for themselves I guess.
I can tell you as a tech literate person in healthcare… That I am in the minority of security conscious and knowledgeable users of said technology.
I expect HIPPA violations of unparalleled proportion from this new tech.
People are already terrible at security, and now they have even more information recording methods to mess up.
HIPAA :p
Ain’t no hippa hippo here
So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.
what does that even mean? the whole point of the tech industry is for tech-literate people to work to provide products and services to the broadly tech-illiterate public. the goal of a tech product is to be used with as little tech-literacy as possible. why would you assume that someone is highly tech-literate just because they use the product of a tech company?
I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?
-
It does come down to trust, and if you walk into my doctor’s visit with a camera strapped to your face, you’ve lost mine. Doesn’t matter if it’s on or not. I distrust your descion-making abilities on a fundamental level. Plus, if they’re the kind of person who would try and film someone without them knowing, they’re also the kind of person to lie about it being off. But honestly, they might not even be trying to record surreptitiously, they might do it on accident. I’ve got a buddy who worked in IT customer support for a medical device company and would tell us horror stories, the amount of American doctors who have absolutely no fucking clue how basic technology works is staggering. Like truly scary, considering how highly we regard them and their presumed intelligence.
The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?
If your proctologist had an OnlyFans-branded go-pro strapped to their head, would you drop trou and bend over?
a camera openly displayed, but off,
I know enough about technology and big tech companies to be completely unwilling to believe that any device claiming to be “off” or even just to have some feature “off” can be trusted not to be collecting data anyway, at least in certain situations. They have completely and utterly destroyed that trust, and are at this very moment still dancing gleefully on its corpse. It doesn’t really make any sense for them to act surprised when we refuse to believe a company like Meta will take anyone’s privacy seriously.
That’s why regulations and standards need to be put in place for this emerging technology.
As you said, no one should be trusting meta for anything, especially privacy. That’s why physically covered cameras with foolproof hardware methods showing when the uncovered cameras are recording is needed.
Having a hidden camera in a room would be illegal. The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%. Just to survive, people have to be able to trust in something rather than question every single aspect, and trusting that your medical office isn’t illegally wired to record you secretly is a safe bet. However, when a dumbass walks in with their personal gear that is designed to record and save that recording into a cloud is not even remotely acceptable, especially when that cloud is Meta.
Comparing the two like the hidden camera is a common thing is some major tinfoil hat shit.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%
You can’t genuinely believe this, can you? If a person is a creep who wants to record people in private situations without their consent, there’s a much higher than 0% chance.
Yes, I and damn near everyone else believes it. Do you sweep for cameras whenever you go to the doctor? What about public restrooms? If there is a creep doctor that is willing to risk everything for a peep, yes, it’s possible. How many out of the millions of doctors out there do you think have put a hidden camera in their office? If it’s less than 1 in 100, then that is near 0%.
Well the chances of a doctor wearing meta raybans is near 0%, so I guess this doesn’t happen and we can move on.
I never expected you to understand this conversation, because you’ve shown you’ve got the critical thinking skills of a baby. Still you surprise me.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.
How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.
Because hidden cameras aren’t common and given the legality of the situation, the risk to any medical professional to try and sneak in and use a hidden camera is extremely high. It’s not impossible, it’s just extremely unlikely. There are many many things in life that can be trusted because the odds are extremely favorable, and trusting that there aren’t hidden cameras in a doctor’s office is one of them.
Again, to not trust this reality is conspiracy level insanity. If you wanted, you can go in and sweep a medical room for hidden cameras if you’re so insecure that that’s what’s needed for piece of mind, but everyone will think you’re loony tunes.
What do you think of when you see the phrase “hidden camera” and why doesn’t that include a concealed phone?
Did I ever say it doesn’t include concealed phones? Do you sweep for hidden cameras, including concealed phones everytime you go to the doctor?
Again, it has happened, but when it’s single digit instances out of thousands or millions of doctors, that’s almost never.
You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.
No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.
Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.
It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”
It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.
but off,
there’s an entire creepy industry to disable the lights.
https://stealthspecs.com/product/send-in-modification-service-disable-led-on-meta-glasses/
https://www.reddit.com/r/RayBanStories/comments/s9bb2i/blocking_led_light_when_recording/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCU4RtorMY
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/meta-ai-glasses-record-without-warning-light/
Yeh I know, so clearly that way of doing it isn’t sufficient.
?
not sure what you’re saying; there’s multiple different bypasses. as long as creeps can record what they see without someone’s consent to be recorded, they’ll be creep glasses.
So much the same as phones? Are phones “creep phones”?
There are multiple ways to prevent this, they just haven’t implemented any of them yet because the pushback hasn’t been loud enough, nor has anything been legislated.
PHONES DON’T RECORD WHERE YOU LOOK.
Phones are visible! they don’t look like spectacles. Why do I have to explain this?
I suspect you’re just being duplicitous, certainly you’ve never tried to put your phone on your face or answer the glasses when you hear a ringtone.
Stop acting stupid.
It’s because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.
It’s neither funny nor interesting. Hope that helps
Pervert Glasses™️ by definition can not be HIPAA compliant.
The fact that this doctor even made the attempt should warrant a serious review of their conduct.
It seems according to the video the surgeon had already seen the patient in a state of undress so this is even bigger than HIPAA. If they were recording, he’s probably doing time for each patient visit.
Even if they were not recording from his perspective you have no idea what the stupid things are doing. You don’t really control them, Meta does.
They’re under 24/7 watch by that Indian company I thought, for “ai training”.
I used to work at a hospital and I have experience with doctors who firmly believe that their comfort and convenience tops HIPAA and anything else. I had to file several violations for doctors who wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.”There is a nonzero chance that this doctor didn’t even continue thinking about the consequences beyond “but I need to have the latest thing”.
Are there alternatives outside of paging. I know the risk of texting sensitive information, but I figured there’d be a more modern system than paging.
By the time I stopped working there they were using an app that had an E2E encrypted connection to the medical records system so they could actually even get test results and such as texts. The instances I was describing happened in the early days of iMessage right as we were starting the upgrade of the pager system. Most of the problem doctors had recently finished residencies or internships at hospitals that had already upgraded.
wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.
Wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers for what? My office still has pagers, but that’s mainly because we’re in the hospital’s basement and don’t have very good reception.
The rest of the hospital generally works off of sms for messaging when a patient is roomed, or for being on call. I don’t know how you could break hipaa using a sms in place of a pager.
I dont think ots the SMS itself that breaks HIPPA but rather the device which is commonly used to send SMS. most peoole use their cell phones for SMS purposes and cells phones do have some secret recording capabulities if youre savvy enough with them.
Doesn’t really matter what you use as long as you aren’t utilizing any protected health information (hpi). If you are using information that can identify a patient then you need to be using an approved encrypted device. Generally providers tend to avoid utilizing that type of information just out of habit.
You don’t really discuss patient information or their care with anyone over mobile devices. If you need input from someone directly concerning patient care you tend to do it over EMR so your colleagues have context about who you’re talking about.
If this was in 1992 ok, valid point. Anyone currently forcing doctors to use pagers when secure alternatives that allow for better communication exist deserves pushback.
Eh, I still have a pager and so do a lot of other people in hospitals. It’s mainly because most hospitals have locations that eat cell phone reception.
I think it was in the UK
Does the NHS not have better patient protections in place than the US’s shitty system?
I don’t know specifics about pictures about video, but considering I get data protection notice just so they can process my basic information when dealing with NHS, I imagine this is an offence that could make the doctor easy to sue over this.
There’s not enough information in the article. For example has complaint actually been raised, because it’s sort of sounds like she’s just complained online about it but hasn’t actually done anything official.
I would hope so but I’m not sure
He’s probably been sued multiple times and wants to provide defensive evidence.
Sorry, but I had to record you naked because of our litigious society.
So his solution to getting sued is that he creates another reason to be sued? Wearing a potentially always on, personally controlled recording device, that has been reported to send the footage to overseas workers to categorize it without user knowledge, in a HIPAA setting is just asking for another lawsuit.
“I installed secret cameras in the women’s changing rooms to catch shoplifters! Why are you arresting me?”
Source: ass
On camera.
so dumb he keeps breaking the law? by breaking new laws?
what a fascinatingly stupid concept
