There is no question that this violates doctor patient confidentiality and damages trust. Fuck no. Even if they fucking have to not take off their clothes NO.
That seems like a HIPAA violation because it’s unknown eyes and ears in the exam room.
Yes, dipshits like that should be banned from the medical profession.
That’s a weird a.i.-generated doctor. O.o
They need to be banned, agreed. But that doctor needs to have his medical license fully revoked, permanently.
Check that man’s hdd for sure
Check that man’s hhd for sure
I know this is nitpicky and I’m sorry but… “hdd” not “hhd”. But probably in 2026 its an ssd anyway.
…its an ssd anyway.
It depends on how much video he has. HDDs arent cheap but SSDs are expensive and don’t add much in a data archiving scenerio.
Actually, we are probably both wrong and it’s the nand flash on his phone. The kind of tool bag buying meta pervert glasses probably isn’t actually a big techie…
Fair, typo and I’ll fix
It is really upsetting that we can’t get actually good “smart glasses”. Like, glasses that have a little screen projected on the lenses and can do searches and stuff for you on the fly, or display text like a script or something, or watch a video, or see your music playlist…
Why does everyone trying to make “smart glasses” feel compelled to include a fucking hidden camera?? And now it’s even worse with the AI riddle surveillance state we are living in. I won’t even be a little surprised to find out that Meta’s pervert glasses are being co-opted by Flock to add even more cameras to their “safety” network…
The confrontation, shared in a video that has circulated on Reddit, centres on a simple but uncomfortable question: should a doctor be wearing glasses with a built-in camera while examining a patient in an intimate clinical setting?
I hate it when articles do this. Firstly, answer is NO. secondly there’s nothing uncomfortable about the question itself because answer is a NO, third there’s no need to frame a clear violation of privacy as a question. If it’s not acceptable to pull out a phone and start recording in that situation, then it’s clearly not acceptable to wear those glasses.
Years ago people discussed if having a mobile next to the body could be bad for health, specially brain, now we see doctors using smart glasses with wifi 5 and 5g mobile network.
I can honestly put up with a lot, especially in a doctor’s office. Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass. I would walk out if my doctor came in with those glasses. I will go and find a new doctor. There is no way I am okay with a personal camera in that exam room.
It’s not even a personal camera. The footage is uploaded to Facebook where they have humans categorize and tag it.
[bums], [boobs], [other]
[Hot dog] [Not hot dog]
Speaking of abusive people…
Exactly. There is zero way for those glasses to remain HIPAA-compliant, because everything you do is uploaded to Meta’s servers.
I remember a bunch of DateLine exposeés about doctors who used hidden cameras to record patients.
What does it matter if that camera was sold by Facebook?
How about we accept neither as being appropriate.
That’s my point: Neither are and yet this doctor wasn’t arrested over this like if he had a different hidden camera
Because if a doctor puts up a hidden camera only the doctor (and anyone they might personally share the footage with) can see it. With those glasses everything goes through Meta’s servers and we don’t know who has access to the footage.
So is say the scope of the invasion of privacy is the difference.
its invading privacy. a Patient can use hidden camera,often times doctors/ other employee makes condescending comments of patients while they are under anesthesia about the patients.
Every slopper should just be killed. They are already p-zombie puppet terminals for some silicon valley billionaire, so its only biologically murder.
and it also trains thier shitty AI.
I will go and find a new doctor.
right after I punch Dr. M. Olester in the face.
Seriously. How many patients did this guy record before someone noticed? He needs to be killed. Sloppers can’t communicate anymore-they just ask grok what that meant and Claude how to win the argument. Language now skips the human and is entirely mediated by corporate machines. the only thing left is violence.
don’t stop there, call the fucking regulatory agencies for the hospital and the doc. the hospital is obviously at enormous risk for the liability this moron is opening up and probably would like to fire him before the lawsuits land on them.
Hell it’s the only place I’m okay with something up my ass.
Psssshhhhhh! Prude!
Btw, I’m not defending these doctors with the glasses. Fuck that shit! That should absolutely be banned.
I’m just saying anal is awesome! You’re missing out.
Don’t walk out until you’ve left the slopper needing a doctor.
I totally get what you’re saying.
However, it is kind of funny (interesting?) that people will trust that there isn’t a hidden camera in the exam room without question, but mistrust someone who has a camera openly displayed, but off, in the exam room. As if the reminder that cameras exist is what negates that trust, not the risk of being recorded.
This is more of a philosophical musing than a defense of wearing a camera into an exam room.
Without evidence, the idea that there’s a hidden camera in the exam room is just paranoid speculation. By contrast, this was an actual visible camera in the exam room, and a camera that was obviously the doctor’s own personal device. It makes sense to worry more about the camera you know is real.
It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?
the trust is instantly broken when cloud garbage is involved…
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
They still send data when they’re not recording. In either case, the doctor needs to be sued.
“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.
Sued for what?
The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.
That’s the thing though, it’s multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don’t just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of “accidental” system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.
So, now you have to trust:
-
That the person is not intentionally recording you.
-
That they are not unintentionally recording you.
(Because if a camera is on, and eventually connected to the Internet, well… I should not have to explain how that can be an issue in this forum at least. We now have to trust the users tech literacy, and security diligence.)
I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.
I can tell you as a tech literate person in healthcare… That I am in the minority of security conscious and knowledgeable users of said technology.
I expect HIPPA violations of unparalleled proportion from this new tech.
People are already terrible at security, and now they have even more information recording methods to mess up.
HIPAA :p
Ain’t no hippa hippo here
So I have been told, haha. I stand corrected, for sure.
what does that even mean? the whole point of the tech industry is for tech-literate people to work to provide products and services to the broadly tech-illiterate public. the goal of a tech product is to be used with as little tech-literacy as possible. why would you assume that someone is highly tech-literate just because they use the product of a tech company?
I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?
I want to believe you’re earnest and not some trolling chud here to promote the tech.
the ratios speak for themselves I guess.
-
It does come down to trust, and if you walk into my doctor’s visit with a camera strapped to your face, you’ve lost mine. Doesn’t matter if it’s on or not. I distrust your descion-making abilities on a fundamental level. Plus, if they’re the kind of person who would try and film someone without them knowing, they’re also the kind of person to lie about it being off. But honestly, they might not even be trying to record surreptitiously, they might do it on accident. I’ve got a buddy who worked in IT customer support for a medical device company and would tell us horror stories, the amount of American doctors who have absolutely no fucking clue how basic technology works is staggering. Like truly scary, considering how highly we regard them and their presumed intelligence.
The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?
If your proctologist had an OnlyFans-branded go-pro strapped to their head, would you drop trou and bend over?
That’s because there is generally implicit trust that there is no hidden cameras. The open display of a camera effectively destroys that trust. If everyone was always suspicious of there being hidden cameras everywhere, functioning in society would be pretty difficult.
Well, you see, I need my hidden wearable camera to detect other hidden cameras…
Sure, but if a person doesn’t trust their doctor to have a camera in their possession in the room, why would they trust that same doctor not to have one hidden?
That’s what I’m saying. They have that trust and the visible camera would destroy it in an instant because it’s expected to be private. You can’t expect people to assume that there will be something that shouldn’t be there and validate that fact.
Does it matter whether the camera is on or off?
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.
From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that’s on their face, then you can’t rule out that they’d do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.
At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn’t come off suggesting otherwise.
You are not understanding the trust issue.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
As others have said, trust is broken.
These hypothetical doctors almost certainly have a smartphone with them every time they enter the room. Why doesn’t that trigger this loss of trust effect? That can certainly (and arguably more easily) secretly record audio and video.
I just thought it was interesting.
Yes, I totally understand the logic. It’s just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:
- A hidden camera is more dangerous for the victim because it is less risky for the creep/abuser.
- You will not reasonably believe that a doctor will have a hidden camera inside his office.
- A camera exposed to the naked eye is less dangerous for the victim because it is more risky for the creep/abuser.
- The abuser is unlikely to take that risk because he could lose too much, much more than he would gain.
- So it is reasonable not to believe that your doctor will record or photograph you with a camera exposed to the naked eye since it is inherently riskier for the creep, and it is not reasonable to believe otherwise.
Although, the problem here then shifts to the hardware itself. Like, since these lenses were probably closed source and proprietary hardware, and their software as well, then you don’t have a way to prove that if you turn off the camera on said lens (either via the software kill-switch or via the hardware kill-switch) it is actually turning off, or just appears to turn off when it is actually still on but disguised as being turned off. And taking into account that there are precedents of devices doing this (a particularly famous case was that of a smart TV that even when you turned it off, it was not really off, but in a false shutdown, a very low power state where the screen was off, but the core and some telemetry processes, and the microphone, were still running and, thus, recording and sending everything that was recorded to their servers). So the only rational position, at least from a Game Theory point of view, is to assume that every device that is both closed source and closed hardware, that is not Free, Libre and Open Source Software, and Libre and Open Source and Schematics Hardware (yeah, even releasing their schematics), does the same thing.
You are not understanding the trust issue.
By default, patents trust doctors with their bodies so they don’t expect the doctor to do shady stuff like record them with a hidden camera. However, the moment they see something that suggest they might be recording,then the hidden voice awakens and questions everything the doctor has done in a new, not so trustworthy way.
It’s not that patients think that doctors who wear those glasses won’t have a hidden camera too, it’s that doctors who have those glasses might also have a hidden camera, it’s the fact that they have those glasses that opens the patient to other shady possibilities.
As others have said, trust is broken.
If you’d actually read the comment you’d see they already answered this question
a camera openly displayed, but off,
I know enough about technology and big tech companies to be completely unwilling to believe that any device claiming to be “off” or even just to have some feature “off” can be trusted not to be collecting data anyway, at least in certain situations. They have completely and utterly destroyed that trust, and are at this very moment still dancing gleefully on its corpse. It doesn’t really make any sense for them to act surprised when we refuse to believe a company like Meta will take anyone’s privacy seriously.
That’s why regulations and standards need to be put in place for this emerging technology.
As you said, no one should be trusting meta for anything, especially privacy. That’s why physically covered cameras with foolproof hardware methods showing when the uncovered cameras are recording is needed.
Having a hidden camera in a room would be illegal. The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%. Just to survive, people have to be able to trust in something rather than question every single aspect, and trusting that your medical office isn’t illegally wired to record you secretly is a safe bet. However, when a dumbass walks in with their personal gear that is designed to record and save that recording into a cloud is not even remotely acceptable, especially when that cloud is Meta.
Comparing the two like the hidden camera is a common thing is some major tinfoil hat shit.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%
You can’t genuinely believe this, can you? If a person is a creep who wants to record people in private situations without their consent, there’s a much higher than 0% chance.
Yes, I and damn near everyone else believes it. Do you sweep for cameras whenever you go to the doctor? What about public restrooms? If there is a creep doctor that is willing to risk everything for a peep, yes, it’s possible. How many out of the millions of doctors out there do you think have put a hidden camera in their office? If it’s less than 1 in 100, then that is near 0%.
Well the chances of a doctor wearing meta raybans is near 0%, so I guess this doesn’t happen and we can move on.
I never expected you to understand this conversation, because you’ve shown you’ve got the critical thinking skills of a baby. Still you surprise me.
The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.
How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.
Because hidden cameras aren’t common and given the legality of the situation, the risk to any medical professional to try and sneak in and use a hidden camera is extremely high. It’s not impossible, it’s just extremely unlikely. There are many many things in life that can be trusted because the odds are extremely favorable, and trusting that there aren’t hidden cameras in a doctor’s office is one of them.
Again, to not trust this reality is conspiracy level insanity. If you wanted, you can go in and sweep a medical room for hidden cameras if you’re so insecure that that’s what’s needed for piece of mind, but everyone will think you’re loony tunes.
What do you think of when you see the phrase “hidden camera” and why doesn’t that include a concealed phone?
Did I ever say it doesn’t include concealed phones? Do you sweep for hidden cameras, including concealed phones everytime you go to the doctor?
Again, it has happened, but when it’s single digit instances out of thousands or millions of doctors, that’s almost never.
You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.
No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.
Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.
It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”
It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.
but off,
there’s an entire creepy industry to disable the lights.
https://stealthspecs.com/product/send-in-modification-service-disable-led-on-meta-glasses/
https://www.reddit.com/r/RayBanStories/comments/s9bb2i/blocking_led_light_when_recording/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCU4RtorMY
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/meta-ai-glasses-record-without-warning-light/
Yeh I know, so clearly that way of doing it isn’t sufficient.
?
not sure what you’re saying; there’s multiple different bypasses. as long as creeps can record what they see without someone’s consent to be recorded, they’ll be creep glasses.
So much the same as phones? Are phones “creep phones”?
There are multiple ways to prevent this, they just haven’t implemented any of them yet because the pushback hasn’t been loud enough, nor has anything been legislated.
PHONES DON’T RECORD WHERE YOU LOOK.
Phones are visible! they don’t look like spectacles. Why do I have to explain this?
I suspect you’re just being duplicitous, certainly you’ve never tried to put your phone on your face or answer the glasses when you hear a ringtone.
Stop acting stupid.
Now you’re trying to make a distinction between recording and recording exactly from your PoV? Why? Why does that make any difference?
Glasses are visible, and what I’ve been saying is that there just needs to be legislation and standards around making it obvious when smart glasses are recording.
It’s neither funny nor interesting. Hope that helps
It’s because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.
Pervert Glasses™️ by definition can not be HIPAA compliant.
The fact that this doctor even made the attempt should warrant a serious review of their conduct.
I used to work at a hospital and I have experience with doctors who firmly believe that their comfort and convenience tops HIPAA and anything else. I had to file several violations for doctors who wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.”There is a nonzero chance that this doctor didn’t even continue thinking about the consequences beyond “but I need to have the latest thing”.
Most pager systems are actually huge privacy violations. $20 for a software defined radio dongle and a few minutes will give you plaintext pager notifications for hospitals across your state.
Did a project on it when I was breaking into cybersecurity.
There are encrypted paging setups, but there’s a lot of places still running legacy.
I mean as long as they aren’t sending protected health information it really isn’t a HIPAA violation. We use an encrypted pager at my clinic, but that’s just because the hospitals guidelines are stricter than HIPAAs. For what we and most providers still use pagers for nowadays could be done over an unencrypted network. Most of the time it’s just to call us to a certain room number. It’s not like people really have the patience to type out words using two buttons at more.
I was seeing patient names, room numbers, and reason for admission. Not always, but often enough.
Y’all were doing that on pagers? I don’t even know how to send anything on mine.
That’s just what I received on my receiver. I’m not affiliated with the hospital at all, so no clue why they were doing it that way.
Are there alternatives outside of paging. I know the risk of texting sensitive information, but I figured there’d be a more modern system than paging.
By the time I stopped working there they were using an app that had an E2E encrypted connection to the medical records system so they could actually even get test results and such as texts. The instances I was describing happened in the early days of iMessage right as we were starting the upgrade of the pager system. Most of the problem doctors had recently finished residencies or internships at hospitals that had already upgraded.
If this was in 1992 ok, valid point. Anyone currently forcing doctors to use pagers when secure alternatives that allow for better communication exist deserves pushback.
Eh, I still have a pager and so do a lot of other people in hospitals. It’s mainly because most hospitals have locations that eat cell phone reception.
wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers. Every time their excuse was “I don’t like the pager, it’s old.
Wouldn’t stop using SMS instead of their pagers for what? My office still has pagers, but that’s mainly because we’re in the hospital’s basement and don’t have very good reception.
The rest of the hospital generally works off of sms for messaging when a patient is roomed, or for being on call. I don’t know how you could break hipaa using a sms in place of a pager.
I dont think ots the SMS itself that breaks HIPPA but rather the device which is commonly used to send SMS. most peoole use their cell phones for SMS purposes and cells phones do have some secret recording capabulities if youre savvy enough with them.
Doesn’t really matter what you use as long as you aren’t utilizing any protected health information (hpi). If you are using information that can identify a patient then you need to be using an approved encrypted device. Generally providers tend to avoid utilizing that type of information just out of habit.
You don’t really discuss patient information or their care with anyone over mobile devices. If you need input from someone directly concerning patient care you tend to do it over EMR so your colleagues have context about who you’re talking about.
It seems according to the video the surgeon had already seen the patient in a state of undress so this is even bigger than HIPAA. If they were recording, he’s probably doing time for each patient visit.
Even if they were not recording from his perspective you have no idea what the stupid things are doing. You don’t really control them, Meta does.
They’re under 24/7 watch by that Indian company I thought, for “ai training”.
I think it was in the UK
Does the NHS not have better patient protections in place than the US’s shitty system?
I would hope so but I’m not sure
I don’t know specifics about pictures about video, but considering I get data protection notice just so they can process my basic information when dealing with NHS, I imagine this is an offence that could make the doctor easy to sue over this.
There’s not enough information in the article. For example has complaint actually been raised, because it’s sort of sounds like she’s just complained online about it but hasn’t actually done anything official.
He’s probably been sued multiple times and wants to provide defensive evidence.
Sorry, but I had to record you naked because of our litigious society.
So his solution to getting sued is that he creates another reason to be sued? Wearing a potentially always on, personally controlled recording device, that has been reported to send the footage to overseas workers to categorize it without user knowledge, in a HIPAA setting is just asking for another lawsuit.
“I installed secret cameras in the women’s changing rooms to catch shoplifters! Why are you arresting me?”
Source: ass
On camera.
so dumb he keeps breaking the law? by breaking new laws?
what a fascinatingly stupid concept
Removed by mod
I am confused. Why is this even up for debate? Why are we even putting up with people trying to debate this?
Because some of those people are billionaire oligarchs.
Because that’s how an open society with healthy exchanges of views works. Why are we even putting up with people trying to enforce their own insecurities on everyone else?
Or: Because the overton window got moved far enough and privacy now is a privilege of wealth.
Overton is an observation, not a force of influence. It isn’t why things are. We have no choice but to investigate and review whatever beliefs and values are within that window at any given time, given our ever changing world. To respond to an idea or belief with violence or censorship, instead of discussion, is to encourage tyranny. Bad ideas should be opposed by good ideas, not silenced due to some ppls discomfort with parts of our reality.
My right to privacy in a fucking doctor’s office is not an insecurity you ass
Doctors record as a way to take notes, it’s possible this guy is just an idiot. Probably a pervert though.
The only time a doctor has recorded me, they asked for consent first and then the recording went into a HIPAA compliant EMR system. This doctor has done neither.
Me too, my doctor always asks. If he were to just walk in wearing pervert glasses I’d lose my shit.
They need to ask consent for this kind of shit. At least HIPAA is real fucking clear about this shit.
Probably an idiot, possibly a pervert.
these two things are not exclusuivewhen applied to a person.
A notable number of times when a person is a pervert theyre also an idiot, just look at To Catch a Pre dator.
They also aren’t mutually inclusive.
Sadly a number of EHRs integrate with perv glasses.
Because doctor. Superior species.
What’s the difference between God and a doctor? God doesn’t think he’s a doctor.
An old chestnut and still just as true, although I originally heard it about surgeons. There’s a 19th century joke that goes “the surgery was a success but the patient died”. The focus on showing off technique to colleagues instead of being useful is part of the human condition, I suppose.
Something something first amendment.
First amendment only protects you from being persecuted by the government. Being ostracized, shamed and unfortunately attacked in the middle of the night by anonomous people isn’t against the first amendment.
It also doesn’t apply outside the US (there’s a whole planet out there guys) so regardless of the nuance of its construction, it isn’t relevant here anyway.
thanks @MBech@feddit.dk and @echodot@feddit.uk, I was about reply these two points and then saw your replies.
But they are allowed to debate.
Depends on the debate. The government can’t stop them from debating. If you host a debate though, without any government affiliation, you’re not forced to let them attend. In the same way, if you own a forum on the internet, you can silence anyone you want to. The literal ONLY thing the first amendment protects against, is government persecution for speech. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how people react to said speech. Just because someone cries “Muh first amendment!” doesn’t mean you actually have to respect them. You can shame them, silence them, ostracise them. Put up billboards telling people how fucking insane they are. Take out an ad in the local newspaper to display their bullshit in an attempt to shame them into submission, tell them to go fuck themselves. If they’re in your house, you can toss them out. YOU can do whatever you want. YOU can’t breach the first amendment, only the government can.
Bullshit, voyeurism is a felony in most states. Invading someone’s privacy isn’t covered by the first fucking amendment you dolt.
I answered why it’s still debatable. Debating is free speech.
anything is debatable, it doesn’t make it legal or ethical. creeping on people with hidden cameras is fucking gross and needs even more regulation.
Correct. Doctor should have his head put through the wall. Use a stud finder so you don’t miss.
What!? lol.
It’s why you can’t stop the debate. It’s not illegal to be wrong.
You don’t have a first amendment right to debate stuff here.
I do find it funny how much people hate our society’s fundamental rights and want to limit them as much as possible. AIN’T NO FUCKIN FREE SPEECH HERE. WE HATE THAT SHIT.
It’s not that. We just understand what those rights are. And what they’re not.
Obligatory XKCD https://xkcd.com/1357/
Fundamental rights? You don’t actually have a fundamental right to free speech, nobody has to respect that, only the US government as it pertains to their constitution. None of this applies to the first amendment because IT’S NOT THE US GOVT TRYING TO RESTRICT IT. You’re in a world-wide forum. Do you think anyone in another country gives a shit what your government thinks about your US rights? Say what you want, but literally nobody has to care what you think
9 out of 10 doctors choose not to wear pervert-glasses.
But that one guy…
Fucking mention that moron’s name in the headline. Pussy reporters.
Or actual journalism.
If he’s convicted of something, then yes, he gets his name on the papers; otherwise he’s innocent until proven guilty.Nah that would be illegal
innocemt until proven guilty. The only time they can reveal the person’s name aand face is if theyre convicted of something AND theyre an adult.
Also a bonus if he does get convicted of this and his name and face gets revealed is that other people who recognize his name and face and who have ALSO been his victims can also then come forward and put additional charges on him. And who knows maybe he has so many victims itll be like a liife sentence when everyone finishes dumping more and more charges onto him.
Humans have an a amazing ability to be idiotic so you cant always blame with malice what can be explained by idiocracy…but iif he is malicious? Ya throw the book at him. And more.
Do you know what slander is?
Do you know what habeous corpus is?
Would you like to be arrested and not given the same rights and protections?
Maybe you should get arrested by ICE and see what its like.
I can’t believe that image in the thumbnail came from official Meta marketing. I have to imagine that Jared the Subway guy didn’t make the cut because he didn’t look creepy enough.
