Comment on Dumb glasses
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 6 hours agoThe first two seem like reasonable concerns, but like, people have eyeballs. When you go out in public… people are seeing you. If someone has a photographic memory and the savant ability to perfectly replicate what they’ve seen by drawing it, would you take issue with them? Obviously an edge case, but those people technically also exist. Their cooperation with authorities to me to share what they’ve recorded is the issue you would take.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe privacy in one’s own home ought to be a legal right, but I don’t understand extending it into a place where that’s functionally impossible on a number of levels. I’ve been recorded plenty where I live by people pulling out their phones. While I do feel some level of tension from that due to the current state of our government, I don’t think that public recording on a fundamental level shouldn’t be a allowed. Hell, even in secret, sometimes people have security camera systems around their living space and the camera’s “reach” into public spaces. Also I’ve secretly recorded conversations I’ve had as well for legal and employment security reasons.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 hours ago
As a matter of strategy, I do not care about edge cases. Irrelevant.
Secondly, phones differ from glasses because they’re often kept in one’s pockets. Allegedly, they can’t see through clothes. And while you can pull one out any time, it can be socially impolite to.
Thirdly, the presence of phone cameras (and microphones) everywhere is not something I’m taking for granted anyway. Is it really a good thing that we have that?
Fourthly, we already have rules about public conduct. You can’t just brandish a gun at people, for instance, no matter how ‘harmless’ this act might be.
Fifthly, if ruthlessly banning all cameras period was the only way forward, and it was better than the alternative, then I would accept that. You wouldn’t (I imagine) because you’re thinking about personal freedom over community health.
Sixthly, if we’re talking not about you and me, but me and Amazon, then my country is my home, and Amazon needs to get the fuck out of it. Surveillance by authorities is obviously what I care about the most.
Anyway, I tend to speak pretty tersely when I’m soapboxing, so don’t take it personally. I hope you have a good day, mate.
HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I try not to ever take it personally. I only get annoyed if insults or character attacks are the only thing a person has to post as its intellectually boring. I don’t find discussing my flawed character interesting other than maybe for context for further good faith discussion. You can be as mean to me as much as you want as long as your responses have substance otherwise, and I appreciate the substance of yours. Its rare.
This gets at the core of the issue yes. That would be correct. No one chooses to be here and we are all individually expected to serve the whole or suffer. I feel a deep chasm between me and people who think that’s perfectly fine or good, which is most people.
I don’t think individuals owe the collective anything. I in fact think the collective owes the individuals.
I know there are people like myself as well and I similarly sympathize with them. So this isn’t a selfish “woe is me”. Its a sense of injustice that anyone must bow to social sources of power of any kind on any “moral” ground. Individuals don’t owe the world anything, the world has more responsibility for the individual’s existence than vice versa, the world should take responsibility for the individuals it fosters the birth of.
I’m probably not be misanthrope, but I might be a “misallist”.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
I… cannot parse any meaning from this.
How does the world take responsibility for its individuals if its individuals refuse to take part in anything?