Yeah that’s fair. I’m in Australia so we get some of the benefits of European policy, but mostly we are slaves to whatever the US and China want to throw at us. Honestly I’m less concerned about China and more concerned about the attitudes of US corporations at this point. They’ve demonstrated time and time again that they will stop at nothing to make a line go up in the short term.

I think the problem is that shit manufacturers exist, so how do you regulate that. At this point you can only assume all AR glasses are sending everything they record to their manufacturer for on selling to the ir favourite data broker, because that’s literally the market. There severely limited options for ethical devices and those that do exist could be bought next week and their policies change on a dime.

I think there’s an expectation that you can identify when someone is filming in playground. I’d be very fucking curious as to what someone thought they were doing if they were walking around filming my kids in a playground. If they are wearing AR glasses then there a reasonable assumption they are filming constantly and sending that data to whoever made the glasses.

I think if you can plan for somehow allowing concent for these things then you can also plan for bypassing it. Also it would need to film you to work out if you don’t consent and then it’s already breached the consent.

Yeah because hacking devices isn’t a thing or anything …

Legal doesn’t mean right. There are a whole host of situations where you shouldn’t be filming and if someone is filming you want them to be obvious about it. Schools, playgrounds, change rooms etc.

I don’t think that’s true, your personal privacy as the owner of the device is one thing, everyone else’s right to not be continuously photographed is another. Having Valve operate it over meta doesn’t solve that. Also, what happens when Gabe does and the investment bank that buys it decides they want to sell everyone data to maximise profit?

The problem isnt your privacy, it’s everyone else’s. If there are glasses with cameras then some arsehole is running around photographing people without their permission. You might argue that if you’re out in public then you can be photographed but that’s a shit attitude, if someone is walking around photographing people they should at least have to make it obvious so people can have a say at the time or at least know about it before it turns out they are now an AI deepfake pornstar.

That could be helpful, I think most tech and inlecs would find it more annoying than anything …

That’s not really AR then is it, AR requires the overlay on reality, I guess it could be like a game OSD but a lot of that detail is probably more annoying than anything. A live map might be good sometimes, but do I need my heart rate showing all the time in regular day to day life? is it helpful to have a shopping list taking up space in my vision all the time? How do I interact with it if it can’t see my hands, do I then have to talk to it constantly to manipulate it? Can other people manipulate my OSD while I’m using it by saying the right thing? Seems pretty gimmicky …

That’s not AR though is it?

AR has so many unsolvable privacy issues it’s wild …

Is that not an exabyte?

All time?! Heck

• Midnight club
• Oblivion
• Mario Kart
• The Discworld MUD
• Subspace

Lol they aren’t thinking about where it will go, they are think about making fat stacks off the labour of others. No the companies aren’t making any money, but the people involved certainly are. When those companies fail those people won’t be held accountable and they will keep most of the money they’ve extracted from the system.

I see what your saying. It’s a broad concept but the process for professional recognition can accommodate that. The topic at question is how do we ensure engineers are ethical in how they operate and professional registration and protection of the role along with the assurances that go with that are a good way to achieve it. I know in law in Australia you must be registered with the local law regulator to practice and members must adhere to strict ethical standards. If you are reported and found to be breach those standards you will not be able to practice any more. Meanwhile engineers are polluting and building weapons ad nauseum with limited repercussions. Engineers are held accountable in most regions legally but laws usually apply to safety, not building/designing unethical things.

So I find the UK a good example of how professional registration can be done well. Each discipline has an organisation that handles chartership specific to that discipline. The IET does a lot of lifting for all things electrical, including communications/telecoms, but I believe they would cover some software engineering depending on what your focus was. BCS, CISec or IfSE would likely cover most software engineering.

My experience tends to be with the IET. They are internationally recognised and have branches in a lot of countries. If you have no local support within your company they will connect you with an existing chartered member in your field who can help with advice and chartership application review. I know with Engineers Australia you can migrate your chartership from the IET to Engineers Australia without too much difficulty. Engineers Australia is a single organisation for all disciplines which is then open to the issues you mention. The UK orgs are all regulated by the engineering council which manages a consistent specification for all orgs to hold their members to, the orgs then review applications specific to the discipline against the requirements of the spec.

Unrelated discipline? Why would you claim to be an engineer if your work was not related to engineering?

A professional engineer would be someone who’s chartered with a recognised engineering institution (Engineers Europe and it’s related Orgs in Europe, Engineering Council and related orgs in the UK, Engineers Australia in Australia etc) and the title would depend on the what the institution want to call them. The professional instution outlines ethical and behavioural requirements to maintain membership.

An Engineer usually refers to someone who does a job related to design and planning for a technical discipline (civil, mechanical, structural, electrical, software etc). The job role usually requires a degree in he engineering disciple, but if you were a particularly fantastic and experienced technical person you might be able to fill the role without one. There will likely be areas of knowledge where you’d be lacking in that case though.

I’m saying the job role could be made to require the chartership to help enforce adherence to the ethical requirements of those governing institutions.

Yeah I agree with this

You’d have to make engineer a protected title for that and enforce membership and chartership with your locally recognised engineering institutions to allow working under the title. They do that in Queensland Australia. It’s not enforced in our other states, which is odd given Queensland is Australia’s Florida …

Getting a job as an engineer in the UK was hard work because every ridiculous job and it’s dog was claiming to be an engineering role. The guy terminating a wall socket for your internet connection: telecoms engineer apparently. Rough gig for having burnt 5 years at university …