400
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
400 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87129 readers
2721 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Without evidence, the idea that there's a hidden camera in the exam room is just paranoid speculation. By contrast, this was an actual visible camera in the exam room, and a camera that was obviously the doctor's own personal device. It makes sense to worry more about the camera you know is real.
It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?
So, now you have to trust:
That the person is not intentionally recording you.
That they are not unintentionally recording you.
(Because if a camera is on, and eventually connected to the Internet, well... I should not have to explain how that can be an issue in this forum at least. We now have to trust the users tech literacy, and security diligence.)
I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.
I can tell you as a tech literate person in healthcare... That I am in the minority of security conscious and knowledgeable users of said technology.
I expect HIPPA violations of unparalleled proportion from this new tech.
People are already terrible at security, and now they have even more information recording methods to mess up.
HIPAA :p
Ain’t no hippa hippo here
Oops, I got too much P and not enough A.
So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.
what does that even mean? the whole point of the tech industry is for tech-literate people to work to provide products and services to the broadly tech-illiterate public. the goal of a tech product is to be used with as little tech-literacy as possible. why would you assume that someone is highly tech-literate just because they use the product of a tech company?
I consider the meta glasses new enough that it's an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?
I get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it... or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going "I bought this but realize I don't know how to use it, and it's too much work, do you want it".
That's a fair point. I'm convinced the Venn diagram overlaps more than I originally assumed.
Bro even Macy's sells these things in store. They're a mass market product.
the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved...
The fact that they own the device? From the article it's implied that the doctor wasn't recording.
They still send data when they’re not recording. In either case, the doctor needs to be sued.
"Send data" meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.
Sued for what?
The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google... etc.. are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn't been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.
Are doctors allowed to have their personal smartphone on them in the exam room?
A doctor pointing their personal smartphone camera at a patient during an exam is a massive issue. Why are you defending blatant privacy violations?
Quote where I defended it.
I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients.
I'm sorry, it wasn't a rhetorical question; I should have made that clear. You brought up HIPAA and spoke about it with some authority so I assumed you'd know.
A phone can be recording audio in a pocket. I assume this would also be a HIPAA violation, so I'm guessing (keyword here) that just having the glasses in the room isn't a HIPAA violation.
Still not advocating that doctors wear them, in case that needs to be restated.
I guess I understand your overall point It's probably valid to say that phones shouldn't be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones).
I'd say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it's their primary purpose. That's basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term "glasshole" followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up.
I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it's basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren't already. It's like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person... but I'd feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him.
I recall that when smartphones were first coming into existence, there was a fair amount of pressure to legally require them to make camera noises when a picture was taken, for fear that someone might have their picture taken without their knowledge.
This is an excellent additional example of the effect I was thinking about.
Honestly, they shouldn’t be.
That's the thing though, it's multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don't just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of "accidental" system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.