• TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    12 days

    The only non-perv use case I have ever imagined for these has been “I’m taking something apart and need to look back at how I did it to put it back together”. But you can just strap a go pro to your head or put your phone on a stand and not look like a perv.

      • Geobloke@aussie.zoneEnglish
        12 days

        And the murder spiders, murder snakes, murder birds, murder fish and serial killers. I hate how we’ve been turned into the Bluey country, we have so much more diversity!

        • Tom Arrr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12 days

          If it makes you feel better, we sold Bluey to the poms, and now they are making bank from it 😀.

          It’s the Australian way.

          • Geobloke@aussie.zoneEnglish
            12 days

            It does not

            That hurts as much as seeing Holden go under so Gina could make a few billion extra

            • Tom Arrr@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11 days

              That one hurt a lot, having been employed directly in their supply chain. We lost so much knowledge and talent just because the lnp hate unions so much

              • Geobloke@aussie.zoneEnglish
                11 days

                Not in the supply chain or even close. But it was an emotional hit especially being from Adelaide and knowing that the government didn’t think Aussies could build stuff any more

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    13 days

    Does the author assume that the reader doesn’t know what Australia is? “Australia! You know; the place with kangaroos, shrimps on barbies, and toilets that flush the other way around!”

  • ian@feddit.ukEnglish
    12 days

    “I went into the shop and said ‘do you sell pervert glasses? I wanna buy some pervert glasses’. So I bought a pair. And I was wearing ma pervies, and walking down the street. But they didn’t work! Everything looks the same. All the people… no different! Still dressed. I mean. What are they supposed to do? Bloody waste of money!”

    • Beangut@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12 days

      You gotta jury rig up your pervies to your slop machine for realtime sexual harassment, it’s a real joke of a system at the moment

      • Psythik@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11 days

        “An Hilarious”?

        I suppose they decided to add the word “hilarious” at the last minute, completely forgetting to change the “an” to an “a” before printing it.

        • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10 days

          It’s from the 1950s or 60s. Maybe it was British made, or could be whoever wrote the ad copy used the British convention of “an” before words starting with “h”.

            • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
              6 days

              It’s somewhat archaic or pretentious now, but I still hear things like “an hotel” on Brit TV from say the 90s.

  • eicker@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13 days

    Australia saw smart glasses and said: what if Google Glass, but with better cameras and worse boundaries? A workplace ban is understandable where confidential data is everywhere. But calling it world leading feels premature: the real challenge is writing privacy rules that survive the next pair of glasses too, not just banning today’s model.

    • Zagorath@quokk.auEnglish
      13 days

      the real challenge is writing privacy rules that survive the next pair of glasses too, not just banning today’s model

      This phrasing is one you seem to use quite a lot, and your website has some pretty prominent use of AI art. Are you using AI in your posts & comments?

      Anyway, for me the real challenge is coming up with a way to protect privacy vis a vis these glasses without restricting genuine public-interest video recording (e.g. recording police or someone threatening you) and protecting photographers’ right to create their art. I’ll just copy/paste a comment I made a few days ago in a similar thread:

      As a photographer I’m a firm believer in the right to take photos and videos in public, for both artistic and documentary purposes. There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place and so objections to all forms of video recording in public places feel like dramatic overreach. The nebulous idea of a general “right to privacy” when in a public space should not override the right of artists to create art, or of anyone to document events/behaviours taking place in public.

      But covertly recording using glasses that have no indicator or an inadequate indicator* in private spaces like changing rooms, or publishing the recordings of a conversation that the other party did not know was being recorded, feels like an overreach in the other direction. Banning devices that covertly record video from spaces where it’s deemed inappropriate feels like a pretty good balance.

      * From what I’ve heard, these Facebook glasses have an indicator that is quite easy to remove aftermarket, and even if you don’t remove it, in brightly lit areas it’s pretty hard to tell it’s on anyway.

      • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        12 days

        As a photographer I’m a firm believer in the right to take photos and videos in public, for both artistic and documentary purposes.

        sure, no problem with that, just be careful.

        There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place

        that’s blatantly false. However much you deny it, there is an expectation of privacy in public. we are not going out to have a chance to be acting on your photos and videos. we are going out because we need to, to go to work, the shop or to the doctors.

        it would be right to say, there is no expectation of being invisible, or that nobody will see me do my things on the street. and of course if we do something silly, people will see that and judge us. but that is not what you said. there is an expectation of not having a permanent record of our own lives if we don’t want, and anything standing in the way of that needs to go.

        that being said, yes, you can take photos and videos in public. granted that there are no unconsenting people in the scene, or that they will not be recognizable in the resulting images. otherwise dont be surprised if you are being judged.
        recognizability does not only mean, whether do I know that person, or whether the face is visible. photographers are notorious for uploading their images to tech companies that have the capabilities and the practice to do their magic on photos to recognize people by their other attributes.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12 days

          when that photography creeps into voyeurism there are definite laws. it’s ridiculous that they throw out ‘but in public you have no expectation -’ naw, how about they don’t take pics and vid of kids and people without their consent.

          there will always be creeps, and those creeps will always be willing to abuse their rights to infringe upon others. stop giving the creeps better hardware and telling us all to accept it.

        • Zagorath@quokk.auEnglish
          12 days

          granted that there are no unconsenting people in the scene, or that they will not be recognizable in the resulting images

          Nope. That’s neither the law nor the ethical requirement. If it were, the entire genres of photojournalism and street photography would not exist. Things may change if it’s for commercial purposes such as an advertising campaign, or if it forms part of a pattern of stalking or harassment or similar, but the general baseline is exactly as I said: there is no expectation of privacy in public.

          • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            12 days

            That’s neither the law nor the ethical requirement.

            the law needs to be changed, and your lack of ethics is your subjective preference.

            • Zagorath@quokk.auEnglish
              11 days

              It’s not a lack of ethics to stand up for photographers’ artistic rights against the utterly insane idea that people should be allowed to pretend they can be private while out in public.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nzEnglish
    13 days

    As a fan of Aussie dash cams im kinda sad. I can only imagine the videos we’d get with Aussies walking around with a dashcam on their face.

      • Fizz@lemmy.nzEnglish
        12 days

        To deprive us of watching crazy situations. I thought it was to stop pervs.

        • sqgl@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12 days

          To be clear: filming without permission is legal, broadcasting is not. The moral panic is not going to be easy to translate into law.

  • miraclerandy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13 days

    I see TimTams mentioned and I gotta say how good they are. If you haven’t tried them, you need to. So good!

    • myyass@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12 days

      I want to try some Vegemite; don’t worry I have a large jar of Marmite in the fridge, I know what I want.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12 days

        I’m an American that developed a taste for Vegemite the Aussie way with butter. I want to try Marmite now.

        • myyass@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11 days

          It’s pretty good and a good supplement. I, thankfully, can get it at the local grocery store.

  • ZidaneRick@lemmy.patton.id.auEnglish
    13 days

    Aussie here, I don’t think that this is a bad move at all. The meta glasses are at a price point that makes them rarely seen in the wild, however Kmart (yes it still exists here, but different owners) has recently had a sale of $20 “recording glasses” that can easily have their recording LED turned off and with a few modifications you wouldn’t even know they had a camera.

    I can understand them doing this in government facilities, as some won’t even allow you to have your phone in certain spaces.

    I do think with tigher guardrails (detection of environments, like if a set of meta glasses enter a restroom or what looks like a restroom it should disable recording entirely.) it could be allowed but we really don’t need to encourage kids that secret recordings are ok.

    • roundabout@feddit.orgEnglish
      13 days

      How would you implement it? On a glass that the user controls (root), it would be impossible. Of course, I do not like bathroom recordings, but there’s no sane way to block them.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12 days

        Of course, I do not like bathroom recordings, but there’s no sane way to block them.

        sure there is, ban them.

        it’d be insane to simply throw your hands up and say ‘well can’t do anything about it’. stop giving the creeps better creeping tools.

        • roundabout@feddit.orgEnglish
          8 days

          And I would NOT be opposed to banning the glasses. I would be opposed to forcing nonfree AI on the users, because that would make them lose control.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8 days

            I would be opposed to forcing nonfree AI on the users, because that would make them lose control.

            no one brought up this canard so stop distracting.

        • roundabout@feddit.orgEnglish
          8 days

          They are already mostly banned, but software is not the right way to enforce that.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8 days

            but software is not the right way to enforce that.

            agreed, make them illegal to import and fine anyone violating that law.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12 days

    I definitely see the possibility for abuse, but making a zero-tolerance assumption that these glasses are worn only by pervs seems as mindless as assuming a black guy walking down your street is obviously casing houses to rob, because why else would he be there? Or that a man eating his lunch on a park bench is definitely, unquestionably a pedophile looking for child victims, because what other reason would he have?