MadeInDex 📰🌎@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agoCalls in the UK to ban sex offenders from buying smart glassescybernews.comexternal-linkmessage-square54fedilinkarrow-up1442arrow-down18file-textcross-posted to: privacy@lemmy.mlnews@lemmy.worldDeMeta@lemmy.world
arrow-up1434arrow-down1external-linkCalls in the UK to ban sex offenders from buying smart glassescybernews.comMadeInDex 📰🌎@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square54fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: privacy@lemmy.mlnews@lemmy.worldDeMeta@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160 I love how they put a pic of “Epstein File Mark” in the article ;)
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·16 hours ago Everything they can do, a go-pro or adjacent camera would work without issue and with less ambiguity. So why aren’t we banning those for perverts too?
minus-squareRemy@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·13 hours agoBecause if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·12 hours agoDisagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects. The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens. Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent.
So why aren’t we banning those for perverts too?
Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing
Disagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects.
The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens.
Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent.