But the 10$ an hour muppet in Wal-Marts security room... no problem if he is surveilling you. Just anyone obvious that isn't in authority that you can point to and demonize for the exact same thing. Right? ;-D

Should we tell him about Flock cameras?

What a lost opportunity to don that tin foil hat! Instead you will be in jail CAUGHT ON TAPE(er well digital bits).

Crap - I just spent my last mod point a few posts back. Somebody please upmod this eloquent comedian!

Do they still sell Borg costumes?

Because:

1. Rhetoric.

2. We know what kind of people will want to wear glasses that record 24/7.

Usually it means they're an insufferable influencer (or believe themselves to be an influencer) and that's reason enough to hate them. Normal people don't go around wearing a camera on their face, hoping for something to happen in their mundane day-to-day life that will go viral on their social media accounts.

> Literally everyone and their brother holds a smartphone which has a camera in it.

And literally the summary states that they ban that too, saying that they "prohibit capturing the image of anyone, except on-stage speakers". So they are dying on the whole mountain range.

So let me see if I understand your argument, which is that because surveillance is already pervasive and ubiquitous, we should allow the use of even more of these devices in a non-public space (which, owing to conference registration and admission terms, DEF CON qualifies as such)? Devices that make it even easier to record others without their consent, including bathrooms where there is a clear expectation of privacy, becuase by their very design, are intended to be worn at all times because of their func

I've been calling them "cheater" glasses, because of the recent influx of university students trying to cheat on exams with them. But "pervert" glasses works outside of academia.

I am a long time Defcon attendee (since #4) and this is my 15th year gooning (volunteer staff).

The announcement is consistent with the âno photography or filming of anyone without their explicit consentâ(TM) that has been in place for literally decades.

Historically it was a policy because in the early days Defcon was considered by the feds to be an event that promoted crime so attendees understandably wanted minimal records of attendance.

So nothing new here, just clarification of an existing polic

Particularly since Dark Tangent insists on having this in Vegas, which has such a high camera density it's almost unbelievable. And they use facial recognition everywhere.

> I really don't see how anyone can call these " pervert " glasses unless the person wearing

> them is crawling around on the floor trying to do upskirt stuff . . . . .

Personally I much prefer the OG "glasshole". It still works even for shit that isn't Google glass. Just describing glasses rather than sufficiently shitting on the person wearing them is a huge mistake.

> Simply being filmed / photographed is pretty much the daily normal these days. With or without your consent, it happens all the same.

Ditto for car accidents and burglaries.

> Think about how much surveillance footage of you there is by simply leaving your home and practically going anywhere. Literally everyone and their brother holds a smartphone which has a camera in it. I can sit quite some distance away from you with any decent zoom lens and photo / film you all day long without your knowledge.

For the life of me I don't understand what goes through peoples heads when they make these types of arguments. X is already bad so why should anyone give a shit when it is made worse? WTF kind of argument is this?

Someone already stole $1000 from me so what does it

Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

> It states that public photography is permitted but with several caveats that essentially prohibit capturing the image of anyone, except on-stage speakers, unless the photographer obtains consent from the subject(s).

Those are just as against the rules, but it's a lot harder to hide the existence of very recognizable glasses on your face in order to skirt the rules here.

And you *really* aren't much of a hacker if you don't want these at DEF CON. That is literally the scenario where they should be *most* wanted. This is like banning packet sniffers because they could be used in an undesirable way. That is the *whole* *fscking* point!

I'm fine with that, as long as we start calling all security cameras "pervert" cameras.

Putting a dollar sign in for an S in nerd culture goes back to mocking Compu$erve. You don't know this is a time honored tradition because you are a noob.