https://petitions.getup.org.au/petitions/demand-kmart-take-the-anko-surveillance-glasses-off-the-shelf signed! i know people can buy similar on aliexpress or temu, they need to be stopped to, until government's privacy laws catch up.. as this smart glasses technology is pedo-creepy..

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago (4 children)

where are glasses that show a display to you? navigation, etc. no camera. just a hud with details and things you’d see on your phone.

[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Exactly. I'd like "smart" glasses to just be an external display for my phone, don't care about a camera. If I want to take a photo I can use my phone.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Tbere's a ton of those.Look for VR or XR glasses

Eg, Viture

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago

I want augmented reality and that does kind of require a camera.

I want the ability to overlay historic photos over real life so I can see in a much more immersive how things used to be.

Overlays of navigation so that paths could be highlighted. Objects I'm looking for highlighted like in a video game.

All the cool things that are context sensitive.

But I want local processing and don't need recording or photos from my pov. My pov sucks compared to what I can get from holding a camera.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

Give me the Apple CarPlay equivalent for the human face, and I’d be happy.

Something like the original Google glasses…

…but like, less shit?

[–] saimen@feddit.org 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

https://www.vuzix.com/products/in-development

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Those aren't cameraless

These are HUD only, no camera

https://www.evenrealities.com/

But you do lose all the fancy AR stuff without cameras or comparable tracking options, so no high precision navigation, etc. Very limited gesture support with at best ToF style sensors for detection, and similarly no stable virtual screen anchoring (necessary to prevent motion sickness for most) without SLAM type tracking

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

i’d love these with an overview/overlay that works as a firefighter may need - well an officer outside. chief, safety, etc - an overlay of a building or where your crews are… hrm. app idea!

[–] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think after the failure of google glass, no corpos dared try again

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The problem with Google glass was the work factor and the camera

[–] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago

Yeah fair, I didn't bother to look up its features relied on memory, and didn't remember it had a camera.

[+] No1@aussie.zone -12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (6 children)

So people are upset about this, but have no trouble with the government tracking where they are and what they are doing 24x7x365.

If you are in public, you have no right to privacy and are free to be recorded. CCTVs, phones, glasses, whatever.

That has been the law for hundreds of years.

Why the beatup and 'outrage' against these glasses of all things? How many times a day does someone have their mobile phone pointed at you, and you have no idea if they are taking photos or videos?

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why the beatup and ‘outrage’ against these glasses of all things?

Presumably for the same reason people have disliked other secret/hidden cameras in the past.

How many times a day does someone have their mobile phone pointed at you, and you have no idea if they are taking photos or videos?

Exactly. They have it pointed at you. In other words, you are able to recognise that there is a camera there and that they may be filming. If someone walks into a public toilet or past a kindergarten wearing glasses, how would you know if they were recording? These glasses are designed to look like pretty standard consumer glasses and are difficult to recognise as smart devices from a distance. It also creates a problem where literally anyone wearing glasses in an area or situation where recording could be problematic becomes a suspect, even if they're just wearing normal glasses and have done nothing wrong.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Ok, point taken, but there's a difference between in public and public toilet. Alan Jones excepted lol.

Oh, you just mentioned something I hadn't considered. Is it the normal glass wearers that are worried they might be tagged as pervs or sickos?

(I mean no disrespect to glass wearers - I use them myself)

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Ok, point taken, but there’s a difference between in public and public toilet.

Legally perhaps, but not in terms of wearing these glasses. As I said, they are designed to look like regular glasses (not just sunglasses), so they don't look out of place in private and intimate spaces in the same way a smartphone can.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Search for 'spy pen', 'spy keyfob', 'spy clock', 'spy camera'

"But glasses are different!" is being obtuse.

All these devices have been available for YEARS

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I get your initial frustration regarding people's general lax attitudes towards privacy and civil liberties, but pretending you can't see any difference here is very silly. Glasses are normal in all situations of life; we have them with us and on us at all times. No one walks around holding pens, key fobs, clocks or any other kind of weird gotcha object you once saw in a James Bond film, outside of very specific situations where those items make sense. In addition, smart glasses are a mainstream tech item being designed, developed and pushed to market by big tech companies - they are far more capable and easy to use than your novelty spy items from Aliexpress.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 days ago

Button cameras are a thing, and shirt pockets are basically made for pens. I was into spy tech as a kid, and even 20+ years ago hidden camera tech was solid, and it's better now with the general miniaturization of everything. I did a quick search and $100-200 can get you a really solid hidden camera that blends into your outfit even up close. For under $50 you can get something that you wouldn't notice from across the street.

I think it's a better idea to just legally mandate a red light that's on every time the camera is. Kinda like when Japan mandated shutter sounds after creeps started taking upskirts.

[–] vividspecter@aussie.zone 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's more noticeable and visceral which is why people are up in arms about it. And rather than downplaying it why not use this as an opportunity to advocate for stringent privacy laws. Because I think you'll find most people do care about the excessive surveillance, they are just not aware of it.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Good points.

Just because it doesn't solve something worse, doesn't mean we shouldn't take a step forward.

I'm still smelling something stinky about this, like maybe it's pushed by Meta or Google (did they axe glasses?), but either way your points still stand. Conspiracy confirmed lol

[–] Nbard@aussie.zone 3 points 5 days ago

So people are upset about this, but have no trouble with the government tracking where they are and what they are doing 24x7x365.

What are you basng the back half of that statement on? The people complaining about these glasses are also the ones complaining about overreach and surveillance because they are the same thing.

[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Most people don't care about police/government/corporate surveillance because that's impersonal and doesn't creep them out.

We did have fearmongering when cameraphones first became common in the 2000s, that perverts were going to be using them to secretly photograph people on the train etc. Presumably that did (and still does) happen somewhat, but its not a news story anymore.

PS: For example, "TubeCrush" (won't give them traffic by linking) is a site for women and gay/bi men to post photos of attractive men on the train. (They don't allow men to post photos of women, because that would be wrong, but the other way is apparently completely acceptable)

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Because all those other cctvs and stuff are owned by companies that don’t want to get sued for posting people’s images non-consensually online. Doesn’t matter if it’s legal to be recorded in public or not. If someone can say a company caused harm because of said imagery, it’s going to be expensive.

Individual people have no problem at all posting these videos and commenting on people they capture, and people viewing that clip will do so as well.

As for the rest; out of sight, out of mind. But even then some take measures to avoid being tracked.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago

Thank our lucky stars that corporations, governments and companies never do anything wrong and protect our privacy so well.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Who can say what governments will do however when individuals are recording your activities, think pervert or criminal.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Who can say what governments will do however when individuals are recording your activities, think pervert or criminal.

So, governments recording and doing whatever is OK, but individuals are automatically pervert or criminal?

😱

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

Not at all. Linking the 2 is a problem as it is a recipe for doing nothing. It makes the problem too big and links it to the law and order lobby.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

You guys still have KMarts?!

[–] eatham@aussie.zone 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, yes. They also bought target and made them have a shit store layout aswell.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Holy shit. They’ve actually done well enough to buy out Target. You guys are fucking wild down there.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 7 points 6 days ago

Kmart didn't buy out Target. Both Kmart and Target are owned by Westfarmers, one of the largest Australian business conglomerates. The above comment was probably referring to a restructuring within Westfarmers around 10 years ago which combined the two into a single division called "Kmart Group".

To be clear, there is also no connection between the Australian companies and their US namesakes. They are completely separate companies and have never shared the same owners.

[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Didn't it happen the other way around in the US?

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No. Kmart went bankrupt a long time ago, got bought out by Sears which also went bankrupt, and some random company picked up the remains of Sears. But the whole time Kmart stores were closing. I think there’s one left in Florida?

Target is a separate entity and that thing has blown up. They’re everywhere. They even made lil mini stores to stick in downtown areas.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

target was originally everywhere in the west, but those direct stores, and some stores have since closed down, the mini-targets dint have traffic at all the whole time they were open, and some were so hit hard "5-finger discounts" it closed.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago

target is its own corporation, they try to look like a "bougie walmart" but more expensive and less options. target is pretty much on par with walgreens prices.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

USA Kmart expanded into Australia decades ago in a 50% joint venture with the Australian supermarket chain Coles. US companies have a habit of divesting their assets here in tough times. Australian retail giant Wesfarmers purchased Kmart and made massive changes. Wesfarmers also owns the Target brand here but that was always just a brand, no US involvement. KMart just about wiped out Target and Wesfarmers seems to focus on developing Kmart and their Anko in store brand (Chinese manufactured stuff built to a price like everyone else).

Outside Australia they brand themselves as Anko. They had a small US trial in 2018-2020 where I think they were testing different concepts, not going for an expansion into the US market. They may be more interested in higher growth SE Asia as they apparently have stores in Manila.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Anko in store brand (Chinese manufactured stuff built to a price like everyone else).

https://ankoglobal.com/about-us.html

Sourcing countries

Bangladesh / China / Pakistan Vietnam / Cambodia / Indonesia Malaysia / Phillippines / Australia Turkey / Austria

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

Fair point. The clothing tends to be Bangladesh/Vietnam etc like a lot of other retailers. Hardly anything locally manufactured or made in a country with equivalent wages or labour rights including some sources which have been accused of modern slavery practices (eg China Uyghyer camps).

I would prefer higher quality and ethical labour practices but I couldn't afford higher prices so I shop there anyway. We have to keep the share holders happy.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 9 points 6 days ago

Kmart Australia is notoriously a very different beast from the dystopian wasteland the US ones are

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

Yes and is the most popular of three mainstream department stores. Big W is owned by Woolworths, but somehow is much more trusted that the Supermarket.

Kmart is different to the US Kmart due to the different demographic of Australia and New Zealand.

Target is the least popular; it is ironically known as “Targét” as parody of Popular Fashion trends and is on the decline.

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long long time