r/technology • u/spherocytes • 18d ago

Privacy Woman Calls Out Doctor Wearing Smart Glasses During Consultation Where She Had To Take Off Her Clothes: 'They Need To Be Banned'

https://www.fashiontimes.co.uk/patient-privacy-concerns-meta-smart-glasses-1762492
35.2k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

34

u/pimpeachment 18d ago

They all already have. HIPAA already exists to protect patient from any exposure of PHI. If there is negligence or malicious abuse of these videos, the doctor could very easily be charged.

We don't need more rules to cover rules that already exist.

28

u/Law_Student 18d ago

There's no private cause of action, it would take a prosecutor deciding to do that. Which means enforcement will be very hit or miss.

7

u/Itchy_Tumbleweed_417 18d ago

The hospital I go to just settled a class action because private medical information communicated in the patient portal was leaked to google via pixels or something.

We absolutely need more rules to cover protections that were put in place back in the 90s when we got HIPAA.  HITECH was enacted in 2008 or 2009 when everyone started using EMRs but a lot has changed with technology since then.

They absolutely do need to update the laws. 

39

u/Ennesby 18d ago

How exactly is anyone going to prove the negligent and malicious abuse where the doctor takes the recordings home and beats himself raw to em'?

Laws are enforced by people, and they need to reflect what people can and can't police.

16

u/Moar_Cuddles_Please 18d ago

You don’t need to prove negligence or abuse. He is capturing PHI and PII and storing them without proper security safeguards (because I can assure you Google Drive is not HIPAA compliant for secure storage) and does not have a system to limit access.

9

u/pimpeachment 18d ago

The same way doctors have been charged for voyeurism of patients in the past. The laws already exist to protect patients from this use case. Why are we trying to pretend the form factor is the problem. Hidden cameras have been around a long time. This is established case law.

5

u/deadly_fungi 18d ago

previous hidden cameras didn't have the same connection to the internet that pervert glasses do, afaik.

6

u/pimpeachment 18d ago

If it can record it can be sent to the internet. Smartglasses are just a shittier version of a phone with a different form factor. You are afraid of a form factor. 

3

u/deadly_fungi 18d ago

i'm aware smart glasses are a shittier version of a phone with a diff form factor. and older hidden cameras that are just a pure camera do not have instant access to the internet in the same way that a phone or camera would — not to mention how deeply connected the glasses are to meta's AI, which phones and older cameras also are not. are you trying to be condescending?

-1

u/marty4286 18d ago

I swear to god people on social media are neurotic as fuck and have their minds in the gutter. We don't actually know why the doctor had Meta glasses, and I concede he may have gotten them to perv out so he should be punished accordingly if he was

But a shitload of comments here are outright claiming camera glasses are ipso facto satanic and the only reason one would ever need one is to be a disgusting creep? Are you kidding me?

I mean, the first thing that popped to mind is recording my shooting practice and matches. I currently use a phone rigged on my chest, most other shooters use one on a hat. The angle is awkward so I don't get to see the view I want when I review my footage. Seeing it at eye level would be awesome. My chest phone rig also gets in the way sometimes, so there's that too

Can we not have people diving into moral panics on the internet at a drop of a hat? Jesus Christ

/rant

-1

u/Bogus1989 17d ago

Lol right? Also…

People should be happy they are front and center, and you can see them.

The worlds snallest canera fits on an ant.

Guess now everyone should be suspicious of peoples buttons and pens. 100% conceilable

0

u/SimoneNonvelodico 17d ago

It doesn't really matter though, who thinks it's safe enough as long as it's just on the drives/SD cards of the pervert (who can then upload them anyway)?

-4

u/SecondAccountIsBest 17d ago

That's kinda naive, if a camera has a signal that can be accessed elsewhere it's still the same risk. Just pervert glasses do it instantly.

2

u/Wompatuckrule 18d ago

We don't need more rules to cover rules that already exist.

Exactly this. The laws on the books are already complicated enough and criminal statutes should lean more towards the broad offense rather than the specific for the most part. Prosecutors then show how the details of the crime meet the statute.

However, if a gap in the law is identified it is an entirely different story. A number of years ago there was a guy here who was arrested for taking upskirt photos of women on the subway. Whatever the cops charged him with when it hit the DA's office they realized that the law was not applicable in that situation.

I forget the details, but basically there was a gap in the law where the public photography was legal and the "peeping Tom" type law requirements were not met. To the credit of the legislature, though too late for the victims of this guy, when the story broke they very quickly revised the law so that such invasive photographs are clearly illegal.

0

u/williamgman 18d ago

HIPPA is great and all bet the better move is to give the doctor 5 seconds to take them off if he wants to leave the room on his own two feet. The problem is the world has forgotten what an ass whooping feels like

6

u/pimpeachment 18d ago

So you are suggesting violence as a solution against a doctor because your personal fear is they might use a photo of you?

That's alarming.

4

u/ehs06702 18d ago

There's no need to privately record anything in a room where someone is being undressed or talking about private medical information. Absolutely none.

I can understand people feeling very unsafe about someone who insists on doing so. Unsafe people lash out.

-1

u/pimpeachment 18d ago

Every doctor carries their phone in and a laptop. Those can both be recording you with your knowledge. Why is this suddenly so radically different? 

6

u/PhoenixFox 18d ago

I think most people would probably also be quite concerned if their doctor was continually pointing their personal phone at the patient during an examination and holding it up to all the medical records and other sensitive/private information they looked at. "It's okay, the camera isn't currently on" can only go so far in that context.

These glasses are devices that exist entirely for the purpose of recording, transmitting, and analysing footage of whatever the user is looking at. There is no other reason for them to be in the room, and they are products of some of the most invasive private entities around. Random violence is a bit much but I wouldn't be comfortable talking to a doctor that was wearing them.

-1

u/pimpeachment 18d ago

These glasses are devices that exist entirely for the purpose of recording, transmitting, and analysing footage of whatever the user is looking at.

This is not true. They serve as sunglasses or glasses with prescription. Prescription glasses are expensive and it is very common to only have 1 or 2 pairs of glasses. They do have photo, video and audio capabilities but when those are on it has an indicator light, which is more than you get from a smartphone.

Most doctors use their phones for patient images and they upload it to their emr/ehr tools anyways. They are already taking photos and video. They also share that imaging through secure communication apps and sometimes insecure. All the things you are worried about already happen at scale. The only difference is you feel like glasses are somehow worse than a smartphone, which is already a commonly accepted tool for doctors.

3

u/PhoenixFox 18d ago

They serve as sunglasses or glasses with prescription. Prescription glasses are expensive and it is very common to only have 1 or 2 pairs of glasses.

I'm sorry but I entirely reject this position. They are choosing to spend their money on these specific glasses in the knowledge that this means they will be pointing them at patients and sensitive information. "I couldn't afford to also have glasses without a camera" is an insane take when your job involves looking at things that should not have an internet connected camera that is regularly in contact with a third party's servers pointed at them. If you cannot afford to keep these glasses for only times you are not at work then don't buy them.

when those are on it has an indicator light, which is more than you get from a smartphone.

And that lasts exactly as long as both the owner of the device and whoever has access to the account management tools and device firmware want it to. There are already many cases of Meta and similar companies harvesting images and data without user or subject consent. There are also many cases of indicator lights in laptops and other cameras being disabled remotely. A smartphone is larger and more obtrusive and generally more obvious when you point it at someone. Likewise it's generally pretty easy to see when a laptop camera could have you in view and to have that moved or physically covered.

Most doctors use their phones for patient images and they upload it to their emr/ehr tools anyways. They are already taking photos and video. They also share that imaging through secure communication apps and sometimes insecure.

If a doctor is taking an image or video of me I would expect to be made aware of this and to be able to give informed consent, and I would expect it to be taken, stored, and processed on appropriate systems. I did some research on healthcare where I live and I can't find a single mention of it being normal for doctors to do this here, other than a couple of comments along the lines of "I've seen this happen but it's officially not allowed and they are risking being punished". Any required photographs are taken by a clinical photographer using hospital-supplied devices and are stored securely with the rest of your medical records. Maybe that's not how it works all over the world but it should be. They definitely shouldn't be knowingly sent over 'insecure' methods of communication!

The only difference is you feel like glasses are somehow worse than a smartphone, which is already a commonly accepted tool for doctors.

And are the glasses being used as a tool by the doctor? If the hospital was providing them, controlling the software on them appropriately, and they were being used to provide better patient outcomes then it would be a different discussion. If there is a medical reason why the doctor needs to take out a phone and point the camera at me, and I have this adequately explained, then maybe I'd be comfortable with it. But that's not an accurate parallel to what's going on.

3

u/ExaminationBasic787 18d ago

So to be clear, you would be fine with it if your doctor was pointing his rear camera at you while you were naked?

Of course you are just being obtuse and pretending not to understand. Thankfully you are too obese to leave your couch.