• Amberskin@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Too complicated, and requires bureaucracy to work.

    Just ban that crap in public spaces.

    • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I dunno if banning shit still works. NYC banned electric motorcycles being sold as ebikes and Amazon was like “lol stfu” and continues to ship them there anyway.

    • ikirin@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also it’ll simply not work. What hinders the offender to just buy it used? Or just have some friend who does not have an entry buy it?

  • Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Can’t ever be enforced until the largest list of the most depraved sex offenders on the planet can be “permabanned”

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Just ban the sales of pervert glasses, period.

    It’ll accomplish the same thing, but be a lot easier legally.

  • TWeaK@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you’re not a sex offender”.

  • Embargo@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    I know it’s a hot-take… But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      This isn’t wise for the sole reason that they really are a great benefit to the visually impaired.

      Right now the tech is super useful, being able to read small text out loud and differentiate similar objects that certain conditions make difficult. However, the tech has the potential to do so much more.

      Banning it now would be like slapping a whole lot of disabled people in the face.

      • Spur4383@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        They do not need to have hidden cameras to work as an aid. The push to make the cameras and microphones hidden is the problem.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I think it’s reasonable if sight impaired people want to appear inconspicuous. You say this is “hiding” the glasses but do you expect them to walk around with a GoPro strapped to a helmet so they can have street signs read to them?

        • Riskable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Who’s pushing to make them hidden? If you want hidden cameras there’s thousands of vastly superior options than thick, ugly, obvious glasses.

          Go search AliExpress right now for “hidden camera”. Your mind will be blown.

      • Embargo@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well in that case they should be regulated with a licence or even a prescription, right? To add to this, disabled people in the example you’re putting forward don’t need internet connectivity or filming capabilities. I see your concern but when the price is the privacy of the entire planet, I can’t accept your argument.

        • Riskable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          You think people should need a license to use technology like glasses and cameras. Listen to yourself!

          I don’t know what kind of “anti” hole you fell into but you need to crawl back out.

          • Embargo@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Technology that trains AI for fascistic multi-billion dollar companies? Films, tracks, listens to private and potentially sensitive conversations? Yeah, probably.

            I’m comfortable in my hole. Maybe you should take the advice of a stranger on the internet instead and grow the fuck up.

            • Riskable@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              You’re confused: You assume that all cameras on glasses will always be controlled by fascists.

              Did it ever occur to you that someone might make their own glasses? Or that a company could make a set that works offline?

              If you ran things, such technology would never happen because it would be banned before it got out the door.

              But you’d be ok with that because you live in a hole, with perfect eyesight and zero foresight.

              • Jason@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I don’t really understand how making them offline only makes them any less dangerous? The issue is that the camera is discrete enough that people wont notice theyre being recorded, not that the glasses can connect to the internet.

                • Riskable@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  So to you, the glasses are irrelevant. You just hate hidden cameras… Like police and various misbehaving corporations all over the world.

  • Kristell@herbicide.fallcounty.omg.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’d be on board if “Sex offender” only included the people that everyone seems to think it includes. However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk, people who turned to prostitution when they fell on hard times, and children who were victims themselves.

    Only thing that will make both sides happy is banning them entirely, which I am 100% in favor of

    (Seriously, though, look up what gets classed as a sexual offence in your area. It’s not just child molestation, and sexual assault.)

    • HerbGrower@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      However it also includes people who peed in public while drunk

      Nope, in the UK it requires more than just public urination to be seen as a sex offender. Unless you are windmilling and pissing all over someone’s window.

      • Kristell@herbicide.fallcounty.omg.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Typically it is by doing something else because they’re mimicking what an adult did to them. Usually it’s younger kids (under 7-8) who mimic like that.

  • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    A completely unenforceable idea driven by moral panic. We’re already seeing plenty of cheap ones on temu, and other more covert types of cameras have been available for years. (Look up pen cameras on Amazon, you’ll look at anyone with a pen in their shirt pocket very differently for the rest of your life)

    Not to mention there’s already open source 3d printed smart glasses. Which means this would no doubt lead to calls for ID checks to buy a 3d printer.

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      In a complete assault on right to self repair, several states are already trying to force 3d printers to validate what they’re printing with some database. They used guns as the Trojan horse but everyone knew it wouldn’t stay there and soon ip checks would be coming

      • filcuk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Didn’t this come to law in California already? Really infuriating that there’s actual possibility of 3d printers being regulated this way.

        • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah California passed their law. One that’s not even technically feasible.

          I think NY has one in the works as well. Not sure if it’s status.

    • PushButton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      They gonna ban the usage in cinemas, then super markets, then the gyms, then they gonna ban guys to buy them, ban dogs to buy them, ban…

      They gonna “ban” everything else but the glasses selling itself… Can’t touch big corpos you know…

      • Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        See, the whole joke was that Mark was the sex offender. It was a bit of a sideways jab and can be missed.