Replying to @⁨SuiXi3D@fedia.io⁩

Were it not for the fact that it’s the fucking privacy-invading big tech companies doing it, I would admit that there are good use-cases for the camera:

  • Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you’re talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I’m not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.
  • Scanning, OCR-ing and making searchable any papers you’re looking at (hooking to your selfhosted Paperless-NGX).
  • Displaying augmented-reality translations of street signs (which is one of the few reasonable things Google Glass actually did).

Replying to @⁨grue@lemmy.world⁩

They’d be helpful when interacting with police. Heck, I could see them being useful when interacting with anyone in a hostile situation. What people will say when they don’t think they’re being recorded and what they will say when they know they are can be vastly different, and the people that will speak and act differently are the very ones you want to record. I’ve had occasions in the past where these would have been very useful, though it turned out recorded audio was sufficent.

Unfortunately the tech is ripe for abuse and I understand the mistrust they cause. Too many crappy people, and too many crappy tech companies that will abuse the video themselves even if the person wearing them only used them with good intentions.

Replying to @⁨4am@lemmy.zip⁩

Most states it’s legal to record audio without consent if you’re a party to the conversation, and it’s legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.

For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I’d not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I’d have likely not beat the charges. So yeah… I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.

Replying to @⁨ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world⁩

They weren’t talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I’d argue there’s implied consent as they’re public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they’re working for the owner class, but they’re paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I’d say that’s fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.

Edited ⁨⁨Jul⁩ ⁨29⁩, ⁨2026⁩, ⁨21:46⁩⁩en

Replying to @⁨Cethin@lemmy.zip⁩

38 states believe if you’re a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to protect yourself.

But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won’t suggest there aren’t reasons that some states are like that but I’m sure glad I didn’t live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.

Replying to @⁨ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world⁩

Legality ≠ morality. 38 states believe you shouldn’t be prosecuted for the act. That is not a statement in what you should or should not do. I agree mostly with not making it illegal because, like I said, there are exceptions that make it something you should do. The law does not handle things like that well.

This isn’t to say someone shouldn’t punch you in the face if you’re filming them doing something they believed to be private. Are you legally allowed to? Sure. Should society allow it, in all cases all the time? Fuck no, and there should be consequences for it.