Hasn't it already happened? There are doorbell cameras, CCTV, dash cams, drones, and everyone using a phone is pointing a camera. Cameras are everywhere in public already.
Holding a phone up to film something is visibly different to wearing glasses which are effectively always on. Cameras are everywhere but there's an expectation that if I meet you in a private place or invite you into my home then you will not be recording everything. In the case of a glasshole there's no way to know if this expectation is being broken.
I'm not sure why the distinction with having a dash cam on a public road needs to be pointed out again and again.
Anyone carrying a phone can always be recording audio discretely and home assistant devices exist in private homes. These have already become commonly accepted risks to privacy in the same situations you've described. I think we as a society end up just trusting others to respect our privacy. That said, the glasses have advertised features like memory that aren't all that useful unless always on. If the glasses push to be always on, then there's definitely a risk that it could invade the privacy of others without the wearer's intent.
> Anyone carrying a phone can always be recording audio
They can and that's different than the capacity of the glasses we're talking about. Again there's a distinction here and I think a good faith discussion would avoid intentionally blurring these lines. If we are going to do that then my argument becomes against mandatory livestreaming of every visit to the toilet.
> These have already become commonly accepted risks to privacy in the same situations you've described.
We routinely ask people to leave their phones behind when entering e.g. concert halls or classrooms. Glasses overlap with something necessary for accessibility and can't be so easily removed.
> I think we as a society end up just trusting others
Who are "we as a society?" There are different cultures who will approach this differently. In the United States they ended up trusting one another not to shoot each other while in other societies they legislated against the casual carrying of firearms. We don't have to accept glassholes walking amongst us just because we accept that people have smartphones.
> there's definitely a risk that it could invade the privacy of others without the wearer's intent.
I was actually arguing with the assumption that this was a certain outcome of the technology.
Avoiding phones in some classrooms and concert halls hasn't slowed adoption of cellphones, that's what I mean by society accepting the product and their privacy risks. Simply turning off cellphones is likely enough to stop glasses from being useful on their own as they tether to a phone. We have the same merging of accessibility device and recording device already with air pods which now can be used as a hearing aid and can record audio when tethered to a phone. With on device (on the phone) image processing and machine learning advances they may be able to address the privacy issues to most peoples satisfaction. The only point I've tried to make in this discussion is that I don't think the product is likely to fail due to privacy concerns anymore as we've watched our privacy steadily erode over the last couple decades this has become a much smaller concession than it once was.
> that's what I mean by society accepting the product
Yes, and gun control is what I mean by society not accepting a product. Your logic is that one product has been accepted so we must now accept this different product, but the logic doesn't hold when there are many products we reject.
> Simply turning off cellphones is likely enough to stop glasses from being useful
They will simply sync once reconnected to a phone and eventually they will have all of the telecommunicative capabilities of phones.
> a hearing aid and can record audio when tethered to a phone
I've already said that audio is qualitively different to video. I don't care if someone comes to my kid's birthday party and records them singing songs but I care if they're going to film them in the pool.
> I don't think the product is likely to fail due to privacy concerns anymore as we've watched our privacy steadily erode
It's strange to me that you frame it as an erosion of privacy while in the same breath campaigning for becoming a passive victim of that erosion win absolutely no desire to criticise what's happening to. It gives me a great pain in my heart to see that capitalism she democracy have so thoroughly failed the Western world that we have completely shed any illusion of agency in shaping society or the market to serve us rather than the other way around.
>I think we as a society end up just trusting others to respect our privacy.
No. There are elements in society who can never be trusted and we can't lock them all up. I suspect it's no coincidence that Meta won't ship their glasses to countries which have the strictest laws designed to make it harder for said individuals. As a resident of one I hope it stays that way.
Unscrupulous individuals are more likely to use cameras that are intended to be concealed to avoid suspicion rather than glasses that have a fortune in advertising to make people aware of what they are and what they do. These glasses company have tons of money to lose for mishandling user data. Meta's glasses are available in many countries considered to have strict privacy laws all around the world: (Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc.) : https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/4961066940605960/
