Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

interesting video

[Heron TSG]

The difference being that...

-Other people can own a car.
-Other people own knives.
-Other people have rope.
-Other people have hammers.
-Other people have toasters.
-Most people h ave clothes.

...whereas only you can have a video from your face that most likely can be traced back to the source, considering that the video appears to both be stored on a server and the glasses track your location. Also that you'll most likely be partially visible in the video. (Limbs, looking at mirrors, etc.)

[Frumple]

Honestly, the thing that possibly bugs me more about the eye-camera thing is being recorded, especially if I'm not in an overtly public place or somethin', especially without consent or knowledge.

Though I guess as long as I can sue or something if someone knocks on my door with one of those things running I wouldn't complain... much. It's still a bit of one of those "Stay the fook out of my life" things, though. I don't mind fallible human memory as much as I do video recordings or pictures.

Still, knowing that some random frakker with no particular reason to do so could be recording me for whatever giggles they get out of it is... kind of annoying, really. I can give a bit on vested interest (security cameras, commercial or for home use), but just as a shits'n'giggles thing... ehn. That tweaks me a bit, it does.

[G-Flex]

Honestly, the thing that possibly bugs me more about the eye-camera thing is being recorded, especially if I'm not in an overtly public place or somethin', especially without consent or knowledge.

This is actually illegal in plenty of places, at least in some ways, and definitely if it involves a conversation being recorded.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Welll.....If you're in a public place you don't have an expectation of privacy, and in that case two-party consent laws about recording don't apply.

Not that the cops much care about that, but regardless.

[Leafsnail]

I've seen that video.  And I really don't see how it relates.  Wearing the camera doesn't magically force you to talk to police.  I guess there's a ridiculously small chance that if you constantly record everything (note that's not practical or something the product expects or requires you to do) you will somehow slightly incriminate yourself in spite of being innocent.  Ok.  But I don't think that chance is greater than the other chances I mentioned or worse ultimately.

...whereas only you can have a video from your face that most likely can be traced back to the source, considering that the video appears to both be stored on a server and the glasses track your location. Also that you'll most likely be partially visible in the video. (Limbs, looking at mirrors, etc.)

I was talking about Truean's "what if you turn it off during a crime" idea, but equally anything the camera records will be circumstantial evidence assuming you're not actually a criminal.  I'm not sure why "other people own those things" is relevant at all (let's say you're the only person in your area with that kind of car).

If you want a more direct example, how about "never meet up with anyone because they may provide you with an alibi that actually ends up incriminating you"?

[G-Flex]

The supreme court has made at least one good decision regarding one's expectation of privacy in public in the digital age.

[fqllve]

I've seen that video.  And I really don't see how it relates.  Wearing the camera doesn't magically force you to talk to police.  I guess there's a ridiculously small chance that if you constantly record everything (note that's not practical or something the product expects or requires you to do) you will somehow slightly incriminate yourself in spite of being innocent.  Ok.  But I don't think that chance is greater than the other chances I mentioned or worse ultimately.

Because if you're foolish enough to talk to the police, believing yourself to be completely innocent, and there are discrepancies between your statement and the video records the police have, which there most certainly will be, then the police will jump on that. And frankly, the last thing you want is to give the police ammunition because it seems like many of them have the attitude of arrest 'em and let the courts sort 'em out.

[Leafsnail]

...Except the camera doesn't force you to talk to police.  I'm not arguing about talking to the police being bad (although I think it's only bad due to horrible evidence being accepted in court).

[Frumple]

It does mean, though, that if you do talk in, say, court, that the discrepancies will capitalized on -- even if they're innocent. Having an absolute reference to measure your fallible memory against in a situation where any discrepancies may be enough to sink you is... undesirable. Regardless as to if you did or did not do anything. Think that's the major point trying to be made, here. That video records are more likely to do damage to you than not.

Honestly, it doesn't even have to be a situation involving you, specifically. You could be testifying about something else.

E: Really, what I'd say about all this is it's going to be facebook et al taken even more into the public sphere. That shit is a plainclothes trap -- albeit one with a certain degree of functionality outside of it -- and on the fly self-recording is just the next step up. Only now it can shove itself into other peoples lives without their consent

I will say that now I'm probably going to have to look more carefully into what exactly counts as "in public." If there's going to be folks walking around randomly taping shit m'gonna' need to be more careful about that.

[Euld]

Sex offenders cannot play online multiplayer games in New York anymore.  Do we seriously need to start running petitions to protect our sex offenders from our own justice system?!

[penguinofhonor]

Just give them all the death penalty already. It's what everybody wants.

[Sirus]

Sex offenders cannot play online multiplayer games in New York anymore.  Do we seriously need to start running petitions to protect our sex offenders from our own justice system?!

How do you think some of them become sex offenders in the first place?

[Euld]

From either molesting someone they knew in their neighborhood, peeing in public, or impregnating their seventeen year old girlfriend after they turned eighteen.

Online games operate behind a strong wall of anonymity to protect everyone from each other.  In order for a sex offender to find a victim, they'd have to breach that wall somehow (probably in a guild) and manage to travel huge distances to find that person.  Chances of a sex offender finding an impressionable youth online within a short driving distance are pretty slim.

The idea that a sex offender cannot even play an online game in a controlled, anonymous environment is abhorrent, absurdly stupid, and absurdly cruel.  We already subject sex offenders to a lifetime of torment and exile from normal life, now we're taking away their right to freaken' entertain themselves.  The sex offender system is absolutely out of control and is ruining two lives for every rape instead of reconciling one while rehabilitating the other.

[Heron TSG]

What the hell?

How do you think some of them become sex offenders in the first place?

In the case of one of my friends who has since moved away, someone text him naked pictures of their underage self (they were both 15) and his phone was confiscated shortly for unrelated reasons. Because the phone wasn't locked (search and seizure laws.), the teacher could flip it open, just not press any buttons. The new text hadn't been read, so it was visible. Cue immediate sex offender status.

It's far from a perfect system.