I need smart glasses. How else can I monetize every second of my life? | Dave Schilling
They’re the latest technological innovation no one asked for – now with added consent issues! I went to a party recently. A fancy one, filled with expensive people and interesting clothes. You might find this surprising, as I expend hundreds of words a week in this publication bemoaning human interaction, but I love parties. I like free champagne, passed appetizers and forced, go-nowhere small…
Dave Schilling, a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist, found himself at a glamorous party filled with expensive people and interesting clothes. He loved attending such events due to the free champagne, passed appetizers, and forced small talk. One night, he happened to spot a Real Housewife of Beverly Hills and decided to capture a candid photo of her drinking a glass of wine. To achieve this, he used a clever mirror trick, which resulted in his friends being amazed by his encounter with a celebrity.
Schilling pondered the concept of taking candid photos without people noticing, leading him to consider the idea of purchasing smart glasses. These intrusive technological innovations, costing between $300 to $500 or nearly $1,300 for a high-end variety, can mirror phone or laptop screens, send and receive phone calls and text messages, and most importantly, capture pictures, audio, and video. Companies like Meta and Viture offer smart glasses, but they also raise concerns about privacy and consent.
While smart glasses may seem like an overstep into the natural world, Schilling believes they could potentially monetize every second of life. With the existing gadgets in his life, such as a phone, tablet, and watch, he doesn't feel the need for more. However, the expanding product lines and the constant push for more gadgets leave him questioning the purpose of these advancements. He worries about the invasion of privacy and the monetization of every aspect of life, even if people never consented to be a part of it.
Written by urgent.news from The Guardian US's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.