BassTurd

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.

When I started at my last job, I was fresh out of college, only Best Buy Geek Squad experience, and I was the sole IT guy at the company. All “backups” were shadow copies and VM snapshots. Shadow copies are great for simple accidental deletions, and the VMs would work as a backup 90% of the time, but it was not a valid backup solution. When I left we had onsite backups to hard drives, cloud backup in Azure blob storage, and remote replication geographically distant.

It still could have been better, but it was something. Also, we worked on government contracts and stored confidential and ITAR controlled military and government drawings and data. It was one of those things that I’m absolutely shocked that in my 9+ years there that we never had a major breach or lost any data.

I see what you’re saying. When I say not common, I mean I trust that it’s not common or likely for a doctor to secretly use a phone or other hidden camera, whatever method that may be, to record, not that the phones themselves are uncommon.

I think one big difference between the two is I trust my doctor, but if they walked in with a recording device on their face I would immediately lose all of that trust even if they said it wasn’t recording. If I saw my doctor walk in with their phone camera exposed, I would also have concerns, but less than the glasses, mostly because the glasses have one function, and that’s recording. Seeing a phone would mean there could be malicious behavior, but not necessarily. It would be something that I would bring up if noticed.

At the end of the day, you have to have some level of trust or you’ll go crazy. It’s easy to trust that your doctor isn’t secretly recording you, but not so much when they’re exposing the camera to you.

That’s fair. The point still stands that they should do better.

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.

That’s less storage than my Plex storage. PBS could and should definitely do better.

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%.

It’s not a Meta only thing, but they are certainly one of the worst companies to have that data. No company should be able to collect data without express permission from anyone in that data. I don’t want literally any 3rd party storing video of me that I didn’t give them approval. An example would be if there were a medical procedure that were recorded on a private local server for reference or archive purposes, similar to any other medical records. Those records are protected by privacy laws like HIPPA where Meta glasses don’t have that.

The recording technology isn’t the problem, it’s consent and how that data is stored and handled after taken.

So if Sony did have their own glasses like Meta, I would 100% expect the backlash to be almost just as bad as it is for Meta. Again, Meta is worse, but bad and really bad are both degrees of bad that deserve criticism and pushback.

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.

We’re not anti technology, were vocally anti destructive and anti privacy technology. AI is terrible in almost every facet. It’s a neat technology on paper, but the environmental and societal impact far outweighs any positives from it. Camera glasses that record people that don’t want to be recorded and saved to a cloud where that information is trained on and out of the control of anyone that’s been recorded is a major privacy violation. Again, the technology of having smart glasses is neat on paper, but it reality is awful and prime for abuse.

So we don’t hate all technology, just the shit technologies, like those mentioned plus flock and Microsoft products to add to the pile. Not being critical of these technologies is insane to me, because it lets these companies push the limit of what’s acceptable without reprecussions.

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.

I haven’t taken any group or family photos for a good 10 years because first, I hate having my picture taken, but second, that shit will for sure end up online, and I’m not doing that as much as possible. Can’t dodge all of the bullets, but I can control what I can control. This is by far my largest online presence, and is decently anonymous. Anyone that’s posting their children online is a PoS if they’re aware, or at best ignorant shits fucking with the futures of their children.

Unfortunately, I had these conversations with many non technical people around me, and those concerns don’t exist amongst the technologically illiterate. There needs to be laws and guardrails in place to prevent this shit.

I was debating someone about this. I said we need for of the pole cutting and destruction while the other person said that’s not okay and we need to go through proper channels. I said we tried and were shut down. Glad to see I was right.

If I found out today I was in a show, I’d do everything in my power to end the lives of everyone tangentially involved. It would mean my life was already meaningless, so there’s no risk in throwing it away.

That’s just like Zuck to copy yet another idea.

Plus they have a built in functionality to detect and skip creator ads. Not that if they were actually legally responsible for blocking those that this would be an acceptable solution, but they aren’t, so this is a consumer bonus.

I hate that I’m defending Google here, but I agree the lawsuit is frivolous.

Ianal, but I believe laws like this usually have a “reasonable expectation” component to them. Imo, ad free means Google isn’t injecting their own ads before or during videos, with the exception of ads during live events. I believe they have lived up to that and more with the built in functionality to detect and skip creator ads. I think the explicit writing in the ToS further defends their position, but by itself isn’t a definitive defense. So I think the prosecution has to somehow convince a judge that they were actually deceived by the whole package, the marketing and defend against the very clearly stated section in the ToS. That to me is a tall order and I think Google wins.

For sure. It was really sad to see 50’ tall oak trees broken in half. Fortunately for us, when they planted trees, they didn’t native species for our area. I think one of mine is an oak, a maple, and maybe a couple smaller trees. I have some red buds I planted myself that are starting to get big enough to provide shade for at least my dogs.

My area was hit by a derecho about 5 years back. We had 140+mph straight line winds for about an hour straight, and it devastated the area. A huge percentage of old growth trees got snapped like toothpicks. A couple years after, the city planted trees in all of the easement for a good portion of the residential area. Had to have been thousands of trees. I got 6 because I’m on a corner.

So my answer is have mother nature tear everything down then they may just do it.

I had decent resources, and even the auto settings should have helped out in some situations, but rare success. I do think there’s a real possibility I had a faulty product, but I never bothered to dig further. Within a year or two phone cameras took the reigns, so I moved on