this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
1139 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
87184 readers
6605 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can totally understand the reason to capture video and conversation during a medical consultation. As someone who has to see a dermatologist from time to time, I've had pictures taken.
The proper protocol is to get consent first, before donning the glasses or pulling out the camera.
And I bet that the perv glasses are not the best option for capturing data for medical analysis.
Especially since whatever footage is shot is certainly going to meta servers.
Insane to even think this is remotely okay.
ianal but that alone is probably a serious breach of hipaa for which the doctor should be slammed
edit: i just realised that article is not from the u. s. and a.
The UK has the Data Processing Act of 2018 and this would violate that law as well. It's probably stricter because it includes the GDPR by reference.
The HIPAA rules are full of "Observe best practices" and "Take reasonable precautions" terms. This obviously flies in the face of that, but they use weasel terms for a reason.
They'll have a compliance officer, who would note these kinds of things, but honestly, it's not until there's a breach and investigation that anything actually happens. Nobody gets slammed about HIPAA until someone's records are actually visibly seen by someone else. The corporation involved would need to take preventive action against the doctor for being reckless, which honestly never happens anywhere I've been.
Because this made the news, he might get a talking-to and a policy put in place. I'd give it 70:30 because it's a particularly bad look on wherever he was practicing. Now if he was also the compliance officer for the practice, or it was a one-man band, nothing will actually happen.
Nah, something like this, they'd have to fire him at the least to save face. Plus it opens him up to personal liability in a civil suit.
Yeah, you'd think that all recordings would have to be local...and not on the cloud.
Most likely they've outsourced their infrastructure anyway...