EPISODE DESCRIPTION
Welcome to It's Gonna Be Fine, the podcast where we bring you the stories and trends you may have missed, and unpack what's really going on.
This week, Matti and David (America’s favorite brother-in-law) unpack the trade-offs of new technology, from smart glasses that can record strangers to AI agents that can manage our lives and cameras that seem to be everywhere. Technology keeps advancing, but are we always better off because of it?
From privacy concerns and the potential for AI to go too far to whether we really need every new innovation, they explore what happens when the things we build to make life easier create entirely new problems.
The conversation then turns to celebrities and whether they have the same right to privacy as everyone else. When someone chooses a life in the public eye, does that change what the rest of us are entitled to see — or is there a line we shouldn’t cross, no matter who someone is? And Matti does his best to convince David that some actors are in it for the art, and not the fame.
Along the way, they discuss the ethics of filming strangers, the internet’s appetite for public shaming, and why having the right to record someone doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do.
Referenced in this Episode
The Daily Show - "Lewis Black on How Tech Is Obliterating Privacy, from AI Glasses to "Fambushing""
The Journal - "How Did Nancy Guthrie Vanish Without a Trace?"
The Free Press - "Welcome to Secular Sharia" (via Instagram)
TRANSCRIPT
Matti: David, you wear glasses, right?
David: Every once in a while, I wear glasses, but yes, I do.
Matti: Have you ever considered getting Meta glasses? Do you know what those are?
David: I’ve heard about them. I looked into them a little bit. I was thinking it might be important.
Matti: To get them? Boy, okay. Good. This is gonna be good.
For those who don’t know, there are these Meta glasses, apparently with built-in AI. I still don’t really know how that works, and they have a built-in camera. Of course, Meta is the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, so apparently they’re in the glasses business, too.
I sent you this clip from The Daily Show. It was pretty funny. Did you think it was funny? Did you laugh at all?
David: Yeah, no, I laughed. Not my usual go-to, but funny’s funny.
Matti: Okay, good. I get the sense you’re maybe not the biggest Daily Show fan, but you can appreciate some of the humor.
In this segment, they talked about how these Meta glasses have been around for a while, but now they’ve got built-in cameras, and people are just walking down the street filming. Specifically, they talked about people filming women and then posting the videos online. The women have no idea they’re being filmed. It’s not even like someone’s holding a camera in their face. It’s just someone talking to them while wearing glasses, and they don’t realize the glasses have a camera.
So my question is: Why do we need glasses to do this? I’m all about technological advancement. Let’s do it! But can we do it for a purpose?
I know there are benefits to Meta glasses, and you’re going to talk a bit about them. What I really want to understand is how we get them to the people who actually need them without having them fall into the wrong hands.
I saw a commercial from Meta where the glasses help people who are blind. Someone sends them a card, and the glasses can read it aloud. That’s great. It’s a very poignant commercial.
But there are two extremes here. The example I just mentioned makes me very uncomfortable about the filming. So what did you think?
David: I definitely agree with your view that filming people who are unaware, using that surreptitious footage as content, and commodifying people that way is gross and wrong. Maybe it’s every single thing that’s wrong with society nowadays. That might actually be a big problem.
I think there are two things here. Number one is the technology itself and the benefits it might have. But then there’s the apparent main use case. It doesn’t seem to be, “We’re giving sight to the blind.” It’s more like, “Great, let’s let all the weirdos have access to this so they can take videos of people and put them on social media without their consent.”
Can Recording Protect You?
Matti: So what is the benefit? Give me another benefit of these glasses. The one that helps people who are visually impaired is amazing. I think that’s cool. What other things can these do for someone who isn’t visually impaired?
David: Nowadays, we’re living in a world where video makes you believe something. Let’s say something happens to you, but there’s no video of it. People are less likely to believe you. If you have video that backs up what you’re saying, everyone knows you’re telling the truth.
At this point, video cameras are so ubiquitous that if you make a claim and there’s no video backing it up, it almost seems untrue.
I don’t want video cameras so I can post things online. Those who know me know I’m not a big poster anyway. That’s not my thing. But think about a dashcam. Why do people have dashcams?
Matti: For security?
David: For security, but also because if someone messes up my car, I want proof that I’m not at fault. That person is at fault.
So, too, with these glasses. I recognize this isn’t the main reason people have them, but it’s one potential benefit I was thinking about. I was being a little tongue-in-cheek when I said I might get them. I don’t think I’m actually going to.
But did it cross my mind that if I got into a he-said-she-said dispute with someone, I might wish I had those glasses so I could record it and show everyone I wasn’t in the wrong? Absolutely.
Matti: Okay, so here’s the next question: Is it worth continuing down this road of technological advancement, which allows so many bad actors to misuse technology, just on the chance that you’ll be in a situation where you wish you had glasses to record something?
David: My gut says no, actually. I don’t think it’s worth it. The people misusing this technology in nefarious and frankly creepy ways probably outweigh the good.
Although I was thinking there might be a workaround or a more positive approach.
I had a really bad experience with a car dealer recently. I was trying to buy a used Honda, and the dealer gave me one price, but when we got to the dealership, he completely bait-and-switched me. I was furious, and I walked out.
A manager called to apologize. I loved it because I knew I was right. I knew they’d bait-and-switched me.
The manager had called previously, so this time I wanted to record the call. In the middle of our conversation, I went to record it. I don’t know if you’ve ever done this, Matti, but the second you press the button to record a call, an announcement comes on: “This call is being recorded.”
The manager heard it. Oops! I was a little busted because I didn’t know that was a thing. I quickly turned it off and said, “I’m really sorry about that.”
Matti: Did he say anything?
David: He was like, “No, that’s okay.” I owned it.
Matti: That’s interesting because there are some states where it’s illegal to record a private conversation without dual consent. Do you know if New Jersey is one of those states? I wonder if the phone knows, based on your location, whether it has to give that warning.
David: That’s interesting. I don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple just put that feature in the iPhone to avoid lawsuits and let people know.
But it made me think that maybe Meta glasses should come with a little red light. If you’re looking at someone, you should know they’re recording you. It’s almost like police body cameras, which have a light indicator.
If the light is on, the person can still be creepy and do nefarious things, but at least you have some knowledge that it’s happening.
Matti: I just Googled, “Can you tell when Meta glasses are recording you?” According to Gemini, you can tell when Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses are recording by looking for the capture LED, a small white indicator light on the front corner of the frame that blinks or stays lit while capturing video or taking photos.
I can see how it could be missed. You might not notice it in daylight, for example.
David: Well, if it’s blinking, you’d probably know.
Matti: Blinking helps. But maybe, like you said, it should be red or another color that’s going to stand out.
Do We Actually Need All This Technology?
Matti: I asked whether it’s worth it because I was thinking about what we’re seeing with AI and AI agents going rogue. We’re living in this crazy world where the literal CEOs of AI companies are saying, “We’ve got to slow down.”
We’re getting to a point where we have all these agents doing all these things, but do we need them to do all these things? Do we need them to pay our bills? Can we really not make a few clicks now that we have online bill pay?
I think we need to ask ourselves: Is this actually necessary? Is it actually going to make life better, or is it taking us down a road where eventually we won’t be able to control it anymore?
David: Yeah, absolutely. Especially if it’s going to take away some of the mundane things. To some extent, part of being human is doing those mundane tasks.
I also worry that you give Claude access to your desktop so it can pay your bills, but then eventually it’s like, “Let me optimize the space on your desktop and delete all your photos.”
Very quickly, it could go rogue, and then we’re really in trouble.
Matti: I agree. I have zero desire to use an AI agent for anything personal. At work, we’re using them a bit, and they’re actually kind of cool when it comes to getting work done. But look at my finances or pay my bills? I’ll happily do that myself.
That’s where I draw the line. Maybe the companies are calling for us to slow down and regulate AI. Fine. Build things that actually help and make a big difference, rather than seeing how much we can let automation and AI take over everything we do.
David: Two things. Number one, sometimes I think maybe I’m one of those people who’s like, “What do we need cars for? Where are you going so fast? Just ride the horse. It’s all the same.”
Sometimes I wonder if I’m just an old man yelling at a cloud. Maybe I shouldn’t be so resistant.
Second, tell me if this is too far afield, but there might be a reason these AI companies are “ringing the bells” and asking for regulation that has nothing to do with altruistically caring about society.
I’ve heard this from other people in the business. If you create regulations, all the small AI companies and startups are going to get throttled because they can’t handle the requirements. The big dogs at the top can handle whatever regulations come along.
So maybe these companies are pushing for regulation not because they’re so concerned about society, but because they want to maintain their place in the market. They want to make sure the five biggest AI companies remain the major players, while all the little guys get shut out.
Matti: You know what? Usually, when you give your skeptical theories, I’m like, “You’re crazy.” But I don’t put anything past these people.
These tech guys can be evil sometimes, I think, especially the guy behind the glasses company. I once heard him in an interview, maybe a year or two ago, and someone asked him about the metaverse. He talked about it as if it were the coolest thing in the world and wondered why every single person wouldn’t want to live in the metaverse.
I was like, “Are you so out of touch that you don’t realize not everyone wants what you want?” Just because you want something, Mr. Billionaire, doesn’t mean you get to snap your fingers and make it happen.
Ever since then, I’ve been annoyed with him. I’ve also done episodes about the lawsuits against Meta, and I’m just not a fan.
Yet I still use their products. On my phone, I have all the Meta products in a folder labeled “Meta” with a devil emoji.
Can We Put Guardrails Around Meta Glasses?
Matti: We’re talking about the lack of digital privacy and how everything from glasses to other devices can record you. My view is that if the glasses help people who need them because they’re visually impaired, I’m all about it.
I think there’s a path for that through the healthcare system, just as you get glasses through a doctor. I don’t think we need to hand them out like candy to everyone who wants to buy them.
That seems like one way to make sure the technology is working for the greater good rather than pushing society further downhill.
David: I think that’s the most altruistic argument. I can actually make another argument in favor of them that just came to me.
Imagine it’s your birthday party or your kid’s birthday party. You don’t want to spend the whole day saying, “All right, everybody, smile!” These glasses give you a camera that’s attached to your eyes, but it doesn’t obstruct you. You can live and enjoy the moment, maybe even be more present, while still capturing those magical moments.
It makes everything more natural. You can capture things you might otherwise miss because you wouldn’t even think to take your phone out. Those could be really special moments, and you could tell everyone, “Hey, just so everyone knows, I’ve got a Meta camera going.”
So there is definitely positive utility.
Matti: I don’t think that outweighs the potential negative consequences, but I hear what you’re saying.
David: Absolutely. I’m playing devil’s advocate. That’s why I’m here.
And it’s not just birthday parties. When you take videos of your kids, or your nieces and nephews, the second you pull out your phone, they stop what they’re doing. They see the phone and realize what you’re doing, and suddenly everything stops being natural and becomes a staged production.
If you don’t have to pull out your phone, maybe the moments become more natural.
A Disappearance in an Always-Recorded World
Matti: Okay, the other end of the extreme is filming through cameras. Have you followed the really sad story about Savannah Guthrie’s mom?
Savannah Guthrie, the Today show co-host, had a mother, Nancy, who was kidnapped. I think it was early this year, or maybe late last year, around December, January, or February. Have you followed any of this? Are you familiar with it?
David: I followed it when it came out, but I haven’t been up to date. I remember she was missing for a few weeks, and it was strange. I remember when the story broke, but I haven’t heard anything about it for a few months.
Matti: When Savannah returned to the show?
David: Yeah.
Matti: The case is obviously very sad, and Nancy still hasn’t been found. For those who aren’t caught up, investigators appear to believe she’s dead. There were multiple ransom notes, and I think two were considered authentic. The second one essentially said she had died and that the people responsible hadn’t meant for that to happen, almost like an apology. Apparently, they believe that note was real.
She had medical conditions, so it makes sense that something could have happened if someone took her without her medication.
I was listening to an episode of The Journal, the Wall Street Journal podcast, and they made a really good point about the case. This was a few months ago. They said what’s so odd is that we’re living in a time when everything is recorded, whether through glasses or something else. Yet Nancy Guthrie disappeared without a trace.
The only digital evidence they found was apparently from a home security camera, maybe a Nest camera. There were no other sightings, no other camera footage, nothing.
All we hear about today is how widespread surveillance has become. Seventy-eight percent of the country has home security cameras, or so the statistics suggest. There are cameras on every corner. That’s how they caught Luigi Mangione: cameras all over the streets.
So how is it that someone can be kidnapped today and disappear without a trace? It’s as if we’re back in 1932. There’s no evidence.
Why is digital surveillance working so well when we don’t want it to, but when we need it to, where is it?
David: I don’t know the specifics of the case. Was she in Arizona?
Matti: Arizona. Tucson, I want to say.
David: Maybe it was a more remote part of Tucson?
Matti: It looked suburban. Definitely suburban, not a city-center environment.
David: That goes back to my earlier point: people expect to see video now. “Pics or it didn’t happen” is something people say, and that’s usually about fun times, but it’s also about life in general.
That’s the expectation now. When there isn’t video, it’s shocking and hard to understand.
It’s interesting how things have shifted. We used to be terrified of security cameras and invasions of privacy, of Big Brother watching us. Now it’s like, “No, let’s all become Big Brother! How come we don’t have cameras? What’s going on?”
I don’t know why society made that shift, and I’m not convinced it’s for the better. But once that shift happens, maybe you just have to do as the Romans do and get the glasses like everybody else. I don’t know.
Matti: That’s part of the problem. We just blindly say, “All right, bring it on. We’ll just do it.”
“Secular Sharia” and the Internet’s Morality Police
Matti: We’re zigzagging here. We started with, “My God, everything’s digital. There’s video everywhere.” Then we went to, “Where’s the digital video?” And now we’re back to, “My God, there’s video everywhere.”
I also shared a video with you from The Free Press. I want to know what you think of this phrase a writer used, although he acknowledged it wasn’t really a formal term.
He was talking about cases where someone documents other people’s lives without their consent. In one case, two lawyers who worked at the same law firm were filmed kissing on a park bench in New York. One was married, and the footage caused a huge controversy. They were upset because they didn’t want anyone to know that one of them might have been cheating on their spouse. They asked for the video to be taken down, but the person refused and posted it online.
People went after them, and you know how horrible people can be online. The writer called this phenomenon “secular Sharia.” He was describing a world where people turn other people’s lives into reality shows against their will, potentially trying to ruin their lives.
You can’t walk out of your house without a good chance of being filmed, whether by a security camera or someone’s glasses. If you do something dumb, or someone catches you at your worst, maybe you’re drunk and stumbling out of a bar, or you say something stupid, the footage can be blasted across the internet against your will.
In this case, one of the lawyers was reportedly put on leave from their job. It became a whole thing.
Part of me thinks this is awful. Nobody has the right to do that. Nobody has the right to ruin someone’s life. The other part of me thinks, if you’re going to do something risky like that, why were you kissing in public if you’re cheating on your spouse? People have a right to privacy, but what if they’re doing something that hurts someone else?
How far should this go? People take it so far. I’m not sure what to think about the whole thing, although I lean toward thinking it’s wrong. I don’t think “secular Sharia,” as the writer put it, is a good thing. But I want to know what you think.
David: I’ll say a few different things. First, I hate the term “secular Sharia.”
Actually, this may surprise you, but I think it’s a little Islamophobic. I agree with the idea behind the criticism, and I’ll get into that in a second, but what does this have to do with Sharia law?
Matti: Sharia law is associated with having no rules, doing whatever you want, and not having rights. I think that’s what he was getting at.
David: But you could have called it totalitarianism or used something else.
Matti: He said in the video that he mainly chose the phrase because he liked the alliteration. He thought it sounded good.
David: I still don’t like it. And I’m about to come out in favor of the rest of his argument, but I think the term “secular Sharia” is Islamophobic. You’re taking something you don’t like, Sharia law, and something else you don’t like, and melding them together. You could have thought of another term. You don’t have to conflate the two.
Matti: Digital privacy invasion, or something like that.
David: Exactly. If you want to criticize Sharia law, go for it. But it has nothing to do with this. Conflating the two is Islamophobic, I’ll say it.
As for the substance of the argument, I fully agree that this is terrible. Even if these people did something wrong or immoral, that’s nobody’s business.
Matti: I kind of felt bad for them, mainly because I think this is such an invasion of privacy and nobody should do that. But then I tried to play devil’s advocate with myself. If this allowed the spouse to find out who she was dealing with, was it worth it?
David: I still tend to err on the side of thinking it’s really bad when we let individual citizens become the morality police. Actually, I don’t think anybody should be the morality police, whether citizens or governments. We should have laws, and people should follow them.
If everyone’s following the law, who appointed you judge and jury to go around filming people?
You don’t know the story. You don’t know everything. Maybe these people are total dirtbags and scumbags. Maybe they’re not. There could be so many variables you don’t know about.
I think it’s terrible when someone goes around filming people and exposing them.
Matti: And it’s one thing to film someone. It’s another thing to be asked to take the footage down and refuse. That’s another part of this: the invasion of privacy, followed by the attacks they experience.
People can be insane online. They hide behind a screen, wherever they are, and threaten you. I’m sure it’s incredibly scary. Being attacked by strangers online is another part of this that can’t be ignored.
David: For sure. You get a sliver of a conversation without seeing what was said ten minutes before or ten minutes after. Things go viral and take on a life of their own.
Maybe someone is having a terrible day. We’ve all had terrible days. We’ve all said things we’ve regretted, in public or to other people. Maybe the person is completely innocent. There are so many possibilities.
There’s even a whole genre of videos where people film others working out at the gym because they look funny while exercising. Why? That person is just trying to live their life, and you think they look funny, so you take a video and blast it online for all their friends and family to see. That’s terrible.
I do think celebrities are a little bit of an exception. Extreme paparazzi is a problem, fine. But you went into this line of work. You knew what you were getting into. You wanted people to stare at you on a screen. You wanted to be featured in People magazine. To some extent, this is what you chose.
Matti: I think some celebrities get into it for the craft. They might want to do really good work, but they have to understand that if their show blows up, their lives will blow up, too. That’s just the way it works. Even if you’re not after fame, you have to understand that’s a possibility.
David: They’re all after fame. I don’t buy it.
Matti: There are some true thespians who want to do really good work. I don’t think they’re all in it for the fame.
David: Of course, there are amazing actors. Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor.
Matti: He probably didn’t get into it for the fame.
David: He knew what was coming. Hollywood isn’t a secret anymore.
Matti: There’s a difference between becoming an actor because you want to be famous and then complaining about being famous, and becoming an actor because you love acting and want to tell stories that way. Then there’s the fallout from that. I’m not saying actors shouldn’t have known it could happen, but I think the intention is different.
The Kardashians, yes. They literally got into it to be famous. But I don’t think that’s true of everyone.
David: Maybe not. Do you think Daniel Day-Lewis has a publicist?
Matti: Probably. He needs one. Whenever he does a movie and commits to doing press, he probably needs someone. I’m sure he does things outside of acting that require one, too.
David: Maybe Daniel Day-Lewis is an exceptional case. Fine. Maybe he never wanted fame, and whenever magazines wanted to feature him, they had to break his arm to get him to do it.
Matti: I was just reading about Merritt Wever. She’s really good and has been in some interesting things. I feel like I just read something about how she hates the spotlight.
David: Sure. Tell me how much she hates it.
Matti: It’s such a downside for some people. You don’t really see her out there all the time.
David: It’s good not to let fame consume you, I guess. But here’s the distinction: normal people aren’t celebrities. When I go to the gym, I’m not signing up to be filmed by some guy when I do something stupid.
That’s where I draw the line. If someone’s doing something bad, we should still give them a little grace.
Matti: To be fair, Merritt Wever has been in Nurse Jackie, The Gilded Age, Severance, Unbelievable, and a new movie called Primetime about Chris Hansen.
I watched her in a couple of miniseries, and she was always very good. Unbelievable is a great miniseries about a woman who’s sexually assaulted and may not be believed. I think I watched it at your house a lot. I remember sitting on your couch watching it.
Anyway, according to Gemini, she’s been open about her intense discomfort with fame, publicity, and being in the spotlight. Despite being a three-time Emmy-winning actress, she famously prefers the shadows to the Hollywood press machine.
When she won her first Emmy in 2013 for Nurse Jackie, her acceptance speech was basically, “Thanks so much. Thank you so much. I gotta go. Bye,” and she walked off.
During press tours, including one for Primetime, interviews reportedly cause her intense anxiety. She once summed it up in an interview with New York magazine by saying, “I sometimes wish I could do my work without an audience.”
David: She might be one in a million who says, “Okay, fine, I accept it.” If you’re giving an Emmy acceptance speech and all you say is, “Thanks, gotta go, bye,” I’ll grant you that.
I actually like it when actors thank all the people in their lives. I think that’s appropriate and fitting. But you’re also enjoying the spotlight and the attention. So clearly, you wanted to defend Merritt Wever.
Matti: Not just Merritt. I know a number of artistic people, and I know not all of them are pursuing fame. I just needed to defend that group. Not everyone who acts is after fame.
David: Fair enough.
Is There Any Expectation of Privacy Anymore?
Matti: There’s something else I was thinking about. I once watched a news program where they interviewed a lawyer about digital privacy. He said something along these lines. It’s not a direct quote, but basically: There is no expectation of privacy anymore in public.
Not only is there no expectation of privacy, but you can barely expect not to be filmed.
From a legal perspective, because there’s no expectation of privacy in public, you can’t necessarily stop someone from filming you. We were talking earlier about how some states require dual consent to record private conversations. But that’s about private conversations. Public filming is different.
David: That’s really scary. I guess I would have thought that was the case, but I don’t know if I’d ever put it that way. Once you say it out loud, it’s wild. If some guy is taking a video of you in public, you can’t stop him, and too bad.
Maybe that’s the expectation now. It might be legally permissible, but it feels morally wrong. I’m not sure what we can do about it.
Matti: A lot of the law is like that.
David: Yeah.
So, Is It Gonna Be Fine?
Matti: How do we make sure it’s gonna be fine? You’ve made that wince face twice now. That little “eek” emoji face.
David: Exactly. We have to end this on a positive.
Matti: Or not! We could literally say, “We’re screwed.”
I guess what I’d say is to try to find those areas where you can draw the line. Whether the big companies are going to draw the line or not, we can’t control that. It sounds lofty and probably impossible, but that’s the only thing I can come up with.
David: I always like the saying, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
You shouldn’t post videos of someone who’s having their worst day. And you shouldn’t be too judgmental about someone you see doing something embarrassing, especially if it’s someone you know.
Have a little latitude, a little grace, a little understanding. Try to see things from another point of view, and don’t be too judgmental. You can’t go wrong.
Matti: Stop. I’m thinking about your gym example. That’s so awful. Don’t do that, people. Just don’t do that. Let people work out!
And it makes you wonder: Are there videos of you or me or whoever out there that we just don’t know about?
David: Wild. I know. And if there are, hopefully we don’t know about them. Hopefully they stay in their orbit.
Matti: That’s right. That’s right. What we don’t know can’t hurt us.
All right, well, it’s been fun. I’m so glad you came back for another one.
David: America’s favorite brother-in-law is back!
Matti: America’s favorite brother-in-law. One day, we’ll get you to the world’s favorite brother-in-law. One step at a time.
David: We’ve gotta conquer America first. Let’s get North America next.
Matti: Okay, we’ll take it step by step. All right, thanks, David, and thanks to everyone else. We’ll see you next time.
David: Bye!
This transcript has been edited for readability.
