Is there any conceivable active or passive property defense here, given they may capture inside private spaces (open doors, windows etc)? Assume "expectation of privacy" was defined in a different world.
Something like IR emitters, infinite-crawl QR Codes, IR-only nsfw content, lidar to damage sensors but not eyes, something fun.
Love the candor of "haven't thought about" giving people an opt out. Not really worth considering for them, kind of moved beyond giving a shit what the consumer thinks about what they're doing at Amazon's size.
Anyway, these should be banned, as should any other smart glasses not for disability assistance tech.
Deeply embarrassing that we tolerate this kind of behaviour. Large corporations are useful machines, but you don't let the machine run when it stops benefitting people. The fact of Amazon's existence is not a natural feature of the universe, and they should continue to exist only if their benefit to society is greater than their cost to society. I'm not sure that what they provide is particularly unique anymore on the retail side at least. Break up AWS and Amazon retail, they're too powerful together.
Amazon retail's economics are actually pretty fragile. Amazon would argue their retail business is being cross-subsidised by AWS lol. They may have intentionally designed it to be that way.
They are useful only in providing convenience to people. But life's purpose is not convenience, and we have sacrificed a lot for this convenience.
Convenient to have everything in one big super store.
Convenient to get packages shipped to you.
Convenient to get answers to any question at your fingertips.
Convenient to message other people, whenever you want.
In the process, we've destroyed small business, mental health, independent newspapers, authentic connections, the climate, privacy, etc.
And yes, jobs. Many will argue for meritocracy, that if those jobs are displaced, they deserve to be. The result is that all the money is just going to get pocketed by the 1% as result. A vicious cycle where fewer and fewer people will own more and more.
Is there any conceivable active or passive property defense here, given they may capture inside private spaces (open doors, windows etc)? Assume "expectation of privacy" was defined in a different world.
Something like IR emitters, infinite-crawl QR Codes, IR-only nsfw content, lidar to damage sensors but not eyes, something fun.
Love the candor of "haven't thought about" giving people an opt out. Not really worth considering for them, kind of moved beyond giving a shit what the consumer thinks about what they're doing at Amazon's size.
Anyway, these should be banned, as should any other smart glasses not for disability assistance tech.
Deeply embarrassing that we tolerate this kind of behaviour. Large corporations are useful machines, but you don't let the machine run when it stops benefitting people. The fact of Amazon's existence is not a natural feature of the universe, and they should continue to exist only if their benefit to society is greater than their cost to society. I'm not sure that what they provide is particularly unique anymore on the retail side at least. Break up AWS and Amazon retail, they're too powerful together.
Amazon retail's economics are actually pretty fragile. Amazon would argue their retail business is being cross-subsidised by AWS lol. They may have intentionally designed it to be that way.
They are useful only in providing convenience to people. But life's purpose is not convenience, and we have sacrificed a lot for this convenience.
Convenient to have everything in one big super store.
Convenient to get packages shipped to you.
Convenient to get answers to any question at your fingertips.
Convenient to message other people, whenever you want.
In the process, we've destroyed small business, mental health, independent newspapers, authentic connections, the climate, privacy, etc.
And yes, jobs. Many will argue for meritocracy, that if those jobs are displaced, they deserve to be. The result is that all the money is just going to get pocketed by the 1% as result. A vicious cycle where fewer and fewer people will own more and more.