It is really upsetting that we can’t get actually good “smart glasses”. Like, glasses that have a little screen projected on the lenses and can do searches and stuff for you on the fly, or display text like a script or something, or watch a video, or see your music playlist…
Why does everyone trying to make “smart glasses” feel compelled to include a fucking hidden camera?? And now it’s even worse with the AI riddle surveillance state we are living in. I won’t even be a little surprised to find out that Meta’s pervert glasses are being co-opted by Flock to add even more cameras to their “safety” network…
For me, the hypothetical appeal of Smart Glasses would be to identify the things in my environment and point them out. That requires a camera. I’m not remotely interested in having augmented reality glasses enough to give a corporation my data like that.
Having actually read the article, I think that doctor himself should be fired and his license to practice revoked. It’s just sounding like another case of the wrong people being entrusted with this kind of technology, so now it’s creating an issue. The trust with doctors is more or less corroded as is the trust in the health care system is, so I’m not surprised to learn that some doctor operating on a side-agenda we’ve yet to know about in his life is the reason here.
The confrontation, shared in a video that has circulated on Reddit, centres on a simple but uncomfortable question: should a doctor be wearing glasses with a built-in camera while examining a patient in an intimate clinical setting?
I hate it when articles do this. Firstly, answer is NO. secondly there’s nothing uncomfortable about the question itself because answer is a NO, third there’s no need to frame a clear violation of privacy as a question. If it’s not acceptable to pull out a phone and start recording in that situation, then it’s clearly not acceptable to wear those glasses.
If the glasses were hipaa compliant, they could be used as a medical tool, but I would never trust Zucks glasses to be like that.
She should have slapped those glasses off his face. Legally speaking it should be fine to punch anyone wearing pervert glasses in the face.
They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.
Check that man’s hhd for sure
Check that man’s hhd for sure
I know this is nitpicky and I’m sorry but… “hdd” not “hhd”. But probably in 2026 its an ssd anyway.
9 out of 10 doctors choose not to wear pervert-glasses.
But that one guy…
do you think there are only 10 doctors in the world?
Is this sarcasm?
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
Or actual journalism.
If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.Nah that would be illegal
Do you know what slander is?
Do you know what habeous corpus is?
Would you like to be arrested and not given the same rights and protections?
Maybe you should get arrested by ICE and see what its like.
There are two parts to this:
- Ethics, a doctor would be expected to know better,
- Reality, where eventually such things will just stop being 100% percent visible, and thus will happen again and again with impunity.
So, first, doctors shouldn’t do that, second, ban or not, this will be happening all around us, no exit.
Eventually people will just have to get used to the idea of not caring about/sexualizing nudity.
Walk outside completely naked right now then if its not such a big deal. Let’s see you put your money where your mouth is.
In some countries you can.
Thank you for missing the point.
Bye
that’s what a perv would say
So you just throw privacy out the window with the baby?
Are you american?
Do you know what the fourth amendment is, of course not?
Oh hi there keyboard warrior.
No, none of those, but i wouldn’t expect you to understand reality.
Have a nice day, bye.
My PCP wears Bluetooth headphones so that his notes are transcribed by his nurse. He always asks me if this is ok, and the device he wears is obviously visible. I can’t imagine a world where your doctor would secretly spy on you. Fuck this noise.
It’s 2026. His nurse is probably ChatGPT. I’ve straight up been asked if I was okay with my appt being transcribed by AI. Icky…
That is one of the legitimate uses. Unfortunately it’s marred by the AI companies’ complete lack of trustworthiness when it comes to data privacy and security. You can’t know for certain they aren’t just wrapping your personal medical notes into their ever growing store of training data.
It’s also not hipaa compliant. Any doctors doing this are in for a bad time sooner or later.
The problem is that these doctors might not even know that the AI’s are spying on them. We don’t have enough legislative protection for our private data so they could sign up for these things and be under the impression that their data is secure meanwhile these AI companies are siphoning that data into their training models without telling them. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.
That’s like the least offensive use of AI as well. I’m perfectly fine with voice transcription that’s hardly even an AI
No, because it’s wrong just enough to slip errors into your medical report that seem plausible, but can be dangerously wrong.
You can and should say no to AI writing anything into your medical report.
People get lazy and don’t review things as carefully when they see it’s usually correct, and you don’t always get the opportunity to read all the notes of your medical report yourself.
Doctors aren’t writing their notes either way, it’s sent to the Philippines or it’s sent to ai. Why would they bother writing themselves when they can see another patient in that time and double their income.
Dunno where that leaves is though, rage at the for profit health industry I guess :/
And either way the practice management software they use is mining those notes to advertise https://www.magentus.com/health-informatics/data-management-services/?r=a - highly regulated but there’s always cowboys
Doctors aren’t writing their notes either way
This is far from a universal truth. While it’s true that local professional medical transcriptionists are much rarer today than they were 20 years ago as a lot of doctors started using software (I remember when “Dragon: Naturally Speaking” really hit the stage everyone thought it would be revolutionary), in my experience there are a lot less doctors even using transcription these days. Some of the old timers still do since they never really bothered to learn to type, but a lot of them just type into a computer in the exam room with patients.
Maybe that’s a regional thing, I don’t know, but it is definitely the norm in my part of the world.
At least a human can learn and understand when there’s logical inconsistencies.
I’d much rather a call center in the Philippines does it than a computer that has no idea what the context is.
An in person scribe is actually best, cause there’s a second set of eyes on the information, and they can ask clarifying questions at the time of the appointment. That’s how my doc does it.
Hey now, don’t shoot the messenger, I was just grounding the conversation in the reality of how I’ve seen doctors typically work (in Australia).
But …your doc has an In person scribe? That sounds pretty great! It is another arrow in the side of the for profit medical industry that not everyone has access to this level of service.
Don’t think they’re call centers, docs just record in a little recorder and send it to transcription services, it’s not live or anything. They don’t get more context than the recording itself…
Every doctor I’ve been to for the past couple years records your appointment to transcribe it with AI. Good luck to people who have a problem with this.
The tool that tried this is a monster, but I do feel sort of bad for the stock image photo models that get associated with the acts of these monsters. Like the dude in the photo could be totally chill, but is presented as though he is the pervert in the story.
That is model wearing them for Ray-Ban. He knows what he signed up for.
Does he, though? The modeling session would have been before they were released and they don’t exactly tell their models the full technical details of the stuff they make them wear.
They shouldn’t be allowed in a work place setting withought prior acknowledgement and consent.
I’ll do you one better, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere without prior acknowledgement and consent
I can totally understand the reason to capture video and conversation during a medical consultation. As someone who has to see a dermatologist from time to time, I’ve had pictures taken.
The proper protocol is to get consent first, before donning the glasses or pulling out the camera.
And I bet that the perv glasses are not the best option for capturing data for medical analysis.
Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers.
Insane to even think this is remotely okay.
ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed
edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a.
The HIPAA rules are full of “Observe best practices” and “Take reasonable precautions” terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason.
They’ll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it’s not until there’s a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone’s records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I’ve been.
Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I’d give it 70:30 because it’s a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen.
Nah, something like this, they’d have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit.
Yeah, you’d think that all recordings would have to be local…and not on the cloud.
Most likely they’ve outsourced their infrastructure anyway…
Pervert Glasses™️ by definition can not be HIPAA compliant.
The fact that this doctor even made the attempt should warrant a serious review of their conduct.
I used to work at a hospital and I have experience with doctors who firmly believe that their comfort and convenience tops HIPAA and anything else. I had to file several violations for doctors who wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.”There is a nonzero chance that this doctor didn’t even continue thinking about the consequences beyond “but I need to have the latest thing”.
Most pager systems are actually huge privacy violations. $20 for a software defined radio dongle and a few minutes will give you plaintext pager notifications for hospitals across your state.
Did a project on it when I was breaking into cybersecurity.
There are encrypted paging setups, but there’s a lot of places still running legacy.
I mean as long as they aren’t sending protected health information it really isn’t a HIPAA violation. We use an encrypted pager at my clinic, but that’s just because the hospitals guidelines are stricter than HIPAAs. For what we and most providers still use pagers for nowadays could be done over an unencrypted network. Most of the time it’s just to call us to a certain room number. It’s not like people really have the patience to type out words using two buttons at more.
I was seeing patient names, room numbers, and reason for admission. Not always, but often enough.
Y’all were doing that on pagers? I don’t even know how to send anything on mine.
That’s just what I received on my receiver. I’m not affiliated with the hospital at all, so no clue why they were doing it that way.
Are there alternatives outside of paging. I know the risk of texting sensitive information, but I figured there’d be a more modern system than paging.
By the time I stopped working there they were using an app that had an E2E encrypted connection to the medical records system so they could actually even get test results and such as texts. The instances I was describing happened in the early days of iMessage right as we were starting the upgrade of the pager system. Most of the problem doctors had recently finished residencies or internships at hospitals that had already upgraded.
wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.
Wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers for what? My office still has pagers, but that’s mainly because we’re in the hospital’s basement and don’t have very good reception.
The rest of the hospital generally works off of sms for messaging when a patient is roomed, or for being on call. I don’t know how you could break hipaa using a sms in place of a pager.
If this was in 1992 ok, valid point. Anyone currently forcing doctors to use pagers when secure alternatives that allow for better communication exist deserves pushback.
Eh, I still have a pager and so do a lot of other people in hospitals. It’s mainly because most hospitals have locations that eat cell phone reception.
It seems according to the video the surgeon had already seen the patient in a state of undress so this is even bigger than HIPAA. If they were recording, he’s probably doing time for each patient visit.
Even if they were not recording from his perspective you have no idea what the stupid things are doing. You don’t really control them, Meta does.
They’re under 24/7 watch by that Indian company I thought, for “ai training”.
I think it was in the UK
Does the NHS not have better patient protections in place than the US’s shitty system?
I don’t know specifics about pictures about video, but considering I get data protection notice just so they can process my basic information when dealing with NHS, I imagine this is an offence that could make the doctor easy to sue over this.
There’s not enough information in the article. For example has complaint actually been raised, because it’s sort of sounds like she’s just complained online about it but hasn’t actually done anything official.
I would hope so but I’m not sure
He’s probably been sued multiple times and wants to provide defensive evidence.
Sorry, but I had to record you naked because of our litigious society.
So his solution to getting sued is that he creates another reason to be sued? Wearing a potentially always on, personally controlled recording device, that has been reported to send the footage to overseas workers to categorize it without user knowledge, in a HIPAA setting is just asking for another lawsuit.
“I installed secret cameras in the women’s changing rooms to catch shoplifters! Why are you arresting me?”
Source: ass
On camera.
so dumb he keeps breaking the law? by breaking new laws?
what a fascinatingly stupid concept
I am confused. Why is this even up for debate? Why are we even putting up with people trying to debate this?
Because some of those people are billionaire oligarchs.
Because that’s how an open society with healthy exchanges of views works. Why are we even putting up with people trying to enforce their own insecurities on everyone else?
Or: Because the overton window got moved far enough and privacy now is a privilege of wealth.
Doctors record as a way to take notes, it’s possible this guy is just an idiot. Probably a pervert though.
They need to ask consent for this kind of shit. At least HIPAA is real fucking clear about this shit.
Probably and diot, possibly a pervert.
Sadly a number of EHRs integrate with perv glasses.
Because doctor. Superior species.
Something something first amendment.
First amendment only protects you from being persecuted by the government. Being ostracized, shamed and unfortunately attacked in the middle of the night by anonomous people isn’t against the first amendment.
It also doesn’t apply outside the US (there’s a whole planet out there guys) so regardless of the nuance of its construction, it isn’t relevant here anyway.
thanks @MBech@feddit.dk and @echodot@feddit.uk, I was about reply these two points and then saw your replies.
But they are allowed to debate.
Depends on the debate. The government can’t stop them from debating. If you host a debate though, without any government affiliation, you’re not forced to let them attend. In the same way, if you own a forum on the internet, you can silence anyone you want to. The literal ONLY thing the first amendment protects against, is government persecution for speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how people react to said speech. Just because someone cries “Muh first amendment!” doesn’t mean you actually have to respect them. You can shame them, silence them, ostracise them. Put up billboards telling people how fucking insane they are. Take out an ad in the local newspaper to display their bullshit in an attempt to shame them into submission, tell them to go fuck themselves. If they’re in your house, you can toss them out. YOU can do whatever you want. YOU can’t breach the first amendment, only the government can.
Bullshit, voyeurism is a felony in most states. Invading someone’s privacy isn’t covered by the first fucking amendment you dolt.
I answered why it’s still debatable. Debating is free speech.
anything is debatable, it doesn’t make it legal or ethical. creeping on people with hidden cameras is fucking gross and needs even more regulation.
Correct. Doctor should have his head put through the wall. Use a stud finder so you don’t miss.
What!? lol.
It’s why you can’t stop the debate. It’s not illegal to be wrong.
You don’t have a first amendment right to debate stuff here.
I do find it funny how much people hate our society’s fundamental rights and want to limit them as much as possible. AIN’T NO FUCKIN FREE SPEECH HERE. WE HATE THAT SHIT.
Obligatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/1357/
Fundamental rights? You don’t actually have a fundamental right to free speech, nobody has to respect that, only the US government as it pertains to their constitution. None of this applies to the first amendment because IT’S NOT THE US GOVT TRYING TO RESTRICT IT. You’re in a world-wide forum. Do you think anyone in another country gives a shit what your government thinks about your US rights? Say what you want, but literally nobody has to care what you think
It’s not that. We just understand what those rights are. And what they’re not.
If true he should lose license.
