The two different terms you used kind of look like they apply to different things. "Privacy rapist" appears to refer to the person using the product, but "pervert glasses" appears to refer to the product itself. (Maybe you wanted to call the computer a privacy rapist, but I'm going to ass/u/me that you wanted the more mainstream usage of calling the perv who uses the computer a privacy rapist. Please complain if I got this wrong. I only bring up this pedantry, because I want to distinguish computers from their users.)
Computers can be used for lots of things. They can be used for copyright infringement, for example. But I think Slashdot would be in an uproar if we banned computers due to fact that some people use them to infringe copyrights.
But if someone wants to gargoyle up, such that their cameras are on their face instead of on their lapel or hidden in their clothing or hat, the cameras are objectionable because that user might be recording other people.
If we look at it in terms of the user's intent, instead of worrying about what the equipment is capable of doing, this looks like a pretty inconsistent policy.
That said, I'm not going all the way to saying this view is wrong. As a defender, a potential adversary's capabilities are what's important, and you can't trust anyone's intent. So if you're worried someone might record you, it might really make sense to ban all cameras, not just cameras operated by known pervs.
But why don't we have that attitude about equipment's capability to infringe copyright? Shouldn't we ban all computers, since someone might do the wrong thing with them? I guess it comes down to this: because we aren't the defenders in that situation; MPAA is. Seriously, they really did try to ban betamax due to fears that some people might use it wrong. And they bought a whole law (DMCA) to try to ban lots of uses of computers, which they thought might sometimes be precursors to copyright infringement. So maybe this is a rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me thing.
I'm seeing an attitude toward wearable cameras emerge, that policy should be oriented more toward the the innocent maidens than the drooling gargoyles recording the maidens for later fapping. Well, sure, WHEN I PUT IT LIKE THAT! But what if we describe the gargoyle more fairly? Someone at an in-person office meeting, where maybe they wanna see peoples' names with their faces like they did on Zoom. Or someone recording some cops beating a handcuffed suspect. Someone playing games like Pokemon Go. Someone following a course on a map. Or...
What I'm getting at, is that perv glasses might be useful for more than just perving. Maybe they're really great at perving too, but I can think of plenty of harmless applications for them, and I'm not even very visionary or creative.
I don't like that we're looking down on some tech, rather than its abusive users. I'm not particularly attached to wearable cameras and wouldn't ever likely be in the market for Meta's products (any of Meta products, ever) anyway, so it's easy for me to just shrug and let the fascists have their way on this particular issue.
But I sure as fuck don't want to see this toxic attitude continue to spread to other tech. Because if we allow that, then MPAA is going to ban all computers unless they're running MPAA-certified AI lawyers, always spying on us like the pervs that they are. And even that is just the tip of the iceberg on the smackdowns this attitude will unleash.
Wearable cameras aren't evil.
Now put it on a pole and call it Flock, then it's evi-- no wait, that's a problem with the camera's user too, isn't it?
