General Discussion

Seemed you were arguing that since nobody should have any expectation of privacy per the Meta contract, that the lawsuit must not be about what I was asserting it was about. Sorry if I misread you there, but that's what it seemed like.

Mainly though, the article you posted takes the existence of the lawsuit and riffs on it to make a case that this is in some sense why they are called "pervert glasses", and that doesn't make sense to me because the subcontractors are the perverts here, which is why my first post says what it does. One can certainly make a separate case as to why they're problematic, but in the present case, at issue is Meta's shitty behavior of not protecting footage after marketing the product with implications that it WAS private.

In this case, Meta are the bad guys (failing to fulfill their promise), not the users, so it didn't make sense (to me) to shoehorn in a totally separate matter i.e. misuse of the glasses, onto the framework of the lawsuit. These are two separate concerns is my point