The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Who Profits When Everyone Is Recording? (ft. Kyla Scanlon)

Episode Date: October 7, 2026

A new show in the Prof G universe by writer and investor Jack Raines! Each week, Jack takes a big story in tech or money and asks what it means for your life and your wallet.  In today's episode, Jack Raines explores the surveillance economy, from AI glasses and viral videos to police camera networks. What happens when someone else trades away your privacy – and who benefits when everyday life becomes content and data? Writer and economic commentator Kyla Scanlon joins him to discuss the tradeoffs between privacy, convenience, and safety, and whether AI is solving the problems people actually need help with. Have a question or a topic you’d like us to cover? Text or leave us a voicemail at [phone]. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from alumni ventures. We've said it before. Diversification is our Kevlar vests. But do you know how concentrated your public stock fund actually is? A handful of mega-cap stocks with an AI story are doing most of the work. That's not the diversification you think, especially when so much value creation is happening before companies ever go public. Alumni Ventures ranked a top 20 U.S. venture firm by both Time and CB Insights,

gives accredited investors a smart, simple way to assemble a Bluchib Venture portfolio and participate in the value creation that is occurring in private markets. You can sign up for free, see the weekly deal flow, and decide for yourself. Or write one check into the Alumni Ventures Foundation Fund for a diversified portfolio of about 25 private venture deals. Go to AV.V.V.c. slash Prop G. Not an offer to sell securities. Venture capital involves substantial risk, including loss of capital invested. See disclosures and fund offering materials for more information. Hi, it's Scott Galloway. We're back with Jack Rennel.

Ryan's writer and investor who's joining us each Wednesday to impact the big stories in money and tech and what it means for your life and your wallet. This week, smart glasses, always on cameras, and the price of convenience. How much privacy are we giving up? And what happens when someone else makes that choice for us? Kyla Scanlan joins Jack to discuss. Here's Jack. Last week, I made a bold claim by stating, I liked targeted ads. One listener called me, quote a clown with a microphone. That's fair, but I stand by it. If I'm going to see ads, I would rather see ads for things that I actually want. But there's a difference between me giving a company my data and somebody else giving my data away for me. And that's the focus of today's

show, how always on devices are eroding our consumer privacy. Essentially, when anyone can record you at any time, what does privacy consent actually look like? And when does, the convenience of the surveillance economy stop being worth the privacy we give up. Later, Kyla Scanlon joins me to talk about where we draw the line. I'm Jack Raines, an investor at Early Stage Venture Capital Fund, Slow Ventures, writer of the substack newsletter, Young Money. In this show, we discuss how the biggest themes in Silicon Valley and Wall Street are impacting your life and your wallet.

Like I mentioned, I took a lot of heat last week for my apparently flaming take that I love advertising, and I'm a massive proponent of giving away all my data, it's big tech companies, so they can serve me better ads. The best benefit of targeted ads isn't just seeing better recommendations. It's that all of us benefit from a lot of free stuff or cheaper stuff that would otherwise cost a lot more money. Let's take Uber, for example. Yes, Uber's do seem to be a little bit overpriced now. I've also seen the price go up. Uber's ad business probably keeps the prices lower than they otherwise would be. Uber does $2 billion a year in advertising revenue. versus in 2025, they did $25 billion total in mobility revenue, which is the revenue from

you and me riding Uber's. So close to 10% of that ride share revenue comes from ads. Add revenue is much higher margin to serve than other mobility revenue because you don't have the labor cost of the driver. It's the marginal cost of serving another ad through the app is basically zero. But because Uber can be more profitable with ads, they can afford to charge you less money to take your Uber. I like that my Uber is. was probably $15 cheaper to go to the airport because it's expensive enough to Uber to JFK. Amazon's the same way. Marketplace Pulse had a great piece back in 2022 about how advertising was masking the fact that Amazon's retail business isn't really profitable. In 2021,

Amazon's retail operations made $6.3 billion in operating income, but if you backed out advertising revenue, they would have had a $25 billion loss for the retail operations. Again, ads have zero or close to zero marginal cost, and most of that ad revenue is pure profit. In 2025, Amazon's ad revenue was about $69 billion, up 22% from the year before. Meanwhile, Amazon's operating income, excluding Amazon Web Services, was $34 billion. Again, e-commerce fulfillment, low-margin, high-cost business, ads, high-margin, low-cost business. I get it. All those like T-Moo, slop ads at the top of your Amazon search results can sometimes suck because I don't want to buy that T-Moo shirt or couch from random Chinese drop shipping business.

I actually like the crate and barrel-s couch. But because of the T-Moo Slop, you can get that couch for much cheaper delivery cost. So, again, this is the last time I'm going to bang the table on the ad business. But we get cheaper stuff because ad subsidized companies' abilities to give you things cheaper. I think that, at least for my day-to-day life, that's probably a win. I also think that if more people actually care about their data privacy, DukDugGo would have more than 100 users, and Chrome wouldn't have billions of users.

So I digress. If you disagree with me, I recommend trying to use the internet in Europe. There's nothing worse than clicking through 27 different cookie consent pop-ups just to read one article. Europe is very much an opt-in internet culture, and America's opt-out. And European websites just really suck to navigate.

And they feel like you're down. downloading malware by trying to avoid malware. Now, my caveat, I think sharing other people's data is where this line gets really blurred. We are quickly entering a world where thanks to everything from voice recorders to smartphones to AI wearables, the likelihood of you being in the background of somebody's video that becomes training data for AI or content that ends up online is quickly approaching 100% at some point in your life if it's not already there. And I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. Like, it's never been easier to turn the world and the people around you into data for big tech. And that's pretty weird because I've opted into sharing my own data. That's a

me problem if you disagree with that. But I didn't opt into being in the background of a video on TikTok that says, what are the guys wearing in Montauk this summer? And video blows up and there I am, like walking across the street. I was wearing a white t-shirt and jeans, pretty normal white dude fit for the summer. And that feels a little bit odd because I had no say in that. But, That's the world we live in today. We have these always on voice recorders. We have AI glasses. We have smartphones.

And there's just very little friction preventing somebody from capturing audio, video, and image data of their surroundings, which includes a lot of people that don't realize they're in that, and that data gets uploaded somewhere. So let's talk about AI glasses. The biggest players in the AI glasses race right now are tech companies, Snap, Meta, and Google. I actually bought a pair of meta glasses back in May. I have them right here in the studio. So I'm a little bit annoyed because the battery has stopped working on these two weeks ago,

and I need to probably take them back to the store. But I had a normal pair of Raybans. I lost them. I was walking through Soho back in May, and one of my buddies and I popped into the Rayban store, and I figured I should, like, test these out and see if I like them. I also think a world where everybody is always wearing always on AI glasses is not necessarily a better place, and there's a ton of problems with this.

The pros, less antisocial than AirPods. Glass is really convenient. They keep you out of social media doom loops. And the form factor is way quicker than instead of taking picture of thing on your phone and asking chat GPT, how does this work? You can just ask the AI about what you're seeing. And it's just smoother and works better and it's cool. And candidly, the cons of thousands or millions of people just wearing these all the time

is that the odds of you being caught in somebody's footage is basically 100% now. And that just really sucks. There's this fear of going viral on somebody's TikTok for the wrong reasons as a background character or out of context video of you being drunk and somebody hitting you with a man on the street video. I do think this whole TikTokification of society has actually just put a lot more people on edge because nobody wants to get flamed online and now nobody is safe from potentially having that happen. And you don't want to have to self-censored 24-7. That sucks. There's also some potential legal issues. filming is actually legal in public, and filming in businesses open to the public is legal

outside of private spaces like bathrooms or fitting rooms, and what you do with the footage afterward, like commercial use, harassment, whatever, carries separate liability. Let's also not forget that data is now worth its weight in gold to the AI labs. And AI labs have already trained on every piece of data on the web, and now everybody wants new data.

And what's a really good way to get new data? Oh, well, I throw on these glasses and I'm, you know, recording videos and taking pictures. And, well, there's a lot of net new data that meta and Google and Snap and whoever didn't have access to. Now you do. What does consent mean in a world where there's zero friction to recording anything of anyone at any time? And at what point is the trade-off between privacy and efficiency no longer worth it in our increasingly surveillance economy? Pre-pandemic, the idea of recording every single meeting would have been taboo about,

or disrespectful at worst. Outside of a journalist recording and on the record interview, the idea of showing up with a digital note taker or transcriber to a meeting would have been asinine. Like, I couldn't imagine meeting

with an entrepreneur with a note taker running the whole time. But throw everybody on Zoom for a couple of years and boom, we normalized video calls. And, well, AI is really good at transcribing words and we used to pay an analyst to take shitty notes while AI can get the same notes perfectly.

But we should continue. contrast what's going on in the business world with the most recent popular form of social media rage bait. One of the more annoying rage bait trends popping up in my Instagram feed lately, I say Instagram because I try to fade TikTok because I think it's cancer, is these videos of somebody wearing meta-ray bands and they walk up to a girl and start hitting on her to get a reaction, or they clown some random guy in a store, or they prank people in a shopping mall by throwing something and then pretending to be a mannequin and pausing. And then obviously the whole whole thing is recorded by either them or somebody else with glasses on.

This whole point of creating this content is to create engagement, which grows the user's platform, which can be monetized through brand deals or ad revenue shares. The problem, of course, is that the engagement comes at the expense of somebody who obviously did not opt in to being punked on camera, who doesn't seek the benefit from this opt-in, and in some cases actually faces issues from it because the video goes viral where, you know, They aren't portrayed in a favorable light, and 10 million people saw it, and maybe somebody recognizes them. And then it's this whole just flywheel of bad stuff happening to somebody who was just going

about their day. Turning the world into content has, of course, been possible for a long time. In the 2020s, now that influencers is now one of the most desirable jobs in the world, and the internet has stopped being a medium to share your takes about the world or your content, and the world is now like a canvas for creating content that can be. be shared with billions. It's not, I am doing interesting things. Let me tell people about them. It's, oh, how do I manufacture virality from the people around me? Film everything. Go viral. Other people are just props to be used for your virality. Phones removed all friction from

turning your surroundings into content. But at least with phones, you can still see somebody recording you. Glasses have removed your ability to easily see if you're being recorded. You know, people just wear sunglasses and glasses and are they taking a picture? I don't know. and we're about to reach a point where you just have to assume that there's a very good chance that you're getting recorded at some point when you're in public when everybody's wearing these things. Now you have to worry about folks asking meta-AI,

what sweater is that girl wearing, or what song is the guy on the subway station playing, or what should I order off this restaurant menu when you see the chalkboard menu outside a restaurant, and the smart glass is being in to process whatever you see, and all the images and videos taken as part of that processing, become training data for an AI company. Per the website, Engadget,

meta has long said that the actual content of photos you capture with the glasses cameras are not shared or used for training, but the company has allowed images and video captured while using meta AI to be used for this purpose. Some of it does get viewed by third-party contractors in other countries whose job is to just label images for AI training to make the models better. And it just kind of feels like a little bit violating.

This is a concern shared with a lot of Americans. There's a security.org survey of 1,000 Americans showing that 72% worry about being secretly recorded by camera wearables, 85% support a law requiring a visible recording indicator, and 60% distrust manufacturers on video and data privacy. Two things that can be true at once. AI glasses are really cool products. There's a lot of stuff that you can just do better through glasses than through a phone. But they're also just this obvious vector for invasions of privacy. and finding the sweet spot between efficiency and privacy is really hard.

Ring, who makes the cameras and doorbells that record what's going on outside your front door, had an all-time bad Super Bowl ad this year where they were showing it was supposed to be cute. Use a ring to help you find your lost dog. If you upload a picture of your lost dog to ring, cameras all over town will use AI to help identify the dog. And the comment section immediately clocked it as George Orwell vibes. Because, yeah, straight out of 1984. Big Brother can find your dog. That means that the cameras can just do stuff when you don't realize it,

and they're always kind of recording. Like, that's not great. Police adoption of body cams spiked aggressively between 2014 and 2016 after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, and then police departments around the country mandated body cams in mass in 2020 after George Floyd's death. Increased body camera usage has yielded more robust evidence in cases of potential police brutality, which is good.

Evidence from researchers in South Carolina appears to show that flock safety cameras were associated with an 11% reduction in car thefts in their first year. That's a good thing. There's also some really bad stuff with flock safety. The Washington Post reported that at least 50 police employees have been charged with or accused of misusing flock safety camera network with 26 of those cases involving police officers spying on romantic partners. That's really bad. Crime going down good. Bad actors using surveillance states to creep on people. and stalk people bad. So we're about to have Kyla Scanlon come on the show.

Kyla recently wrote a piece called, quote, surveillance is trendy now, where she talks all about her experience, buying some of the meta glasses, what she thought about them, and how she's thinking through all of these weird invasions of privacy and whether or not we should be wary of just giving, you know, all of our data and data of the world around us to big tech. So I wanted to get her take on where we should draw this line. We'll be right back after a quick break.

Has American foreign policy become a tool for private gain and anti-democratic ideology? They look for alliances and relationships not based on the idea that they're building a broad realm of peace and prosperity. Rather, they're looking for deals and relationships that are good for them. I'm John Feiner. And I'm Jake Sullivan. and we're the hosts of The Long Game, a weekly national security podcast. This week, journalist Ann Applebaum joins us to discuss her reporting on how private wealth and far-right ideology are reshaping American foreign policy.

The episode is out now. Search for and follow The Long Game, wherever you get your podcasts. Support for the show comes from Hems. Losing weight on your own can feel like a fight you're never going to win. Luckily, weight loss by Hems offers access to the FDA-approved Lagovi pill and Wagovi. P. Wagovi is the first ever GLP1 weight loss medication available in a pill, and it also comes as a pen so you've got options. With Wagovi, you can lose up to 20% of your body weight. People lost an average of 14% body weight at 64 weeks in a clinical trial of Wagovi, alongside diet and

exercise. To get started with Wagovi, just go to Hymns.com and complete an online consultation with a licensed provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate. HIMS is more than just a prescription. Nutrition and lifestyle guidance are part of the plan, along with access to 24 by 7 messaging with your core team, so you've always got someone in your corner. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hymns.com slash prop G to get personalized affordable care for weight loss, hair loss, sex, testosterone, and more. That's hims.com slash prop G. Individual results may vary and stopping treatment may result in weight regain. We're back. Kyla, thanks so much for joining us.

I had a very similar experience to you where you mentioned in this piece that you bought the, was it the meta-ray bands, the meta-Oakles? Which glasses did you buy? The meta-adventurers, yeah. Curious how you think about consent in a world where AI devices take the friction of just recording people and things

and putting them in some cloud server to zero. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if we have regulations that have kept up with social media, and then we certainly haven't had regulation that's kept up with AI. And I don't know if people are even really able to consent to being recorded. It's actually a pretty big issue on social media that a lot of people end up in videos that they didn't want to. It's even more so an issue with the meta-reband.

And now they have the light, so it shows you in the recording, so you can have a better sense. And I think more people can be like, okay, those glasses are gigantic, and they have a camera. Like, I know that that's maybe a person that I don't want to be in. front of. But I just think that like we have no real concepts of how to establish regulation around privacy. And because more and more of our lives, you know, people, you know, I tried out one of the AI assistants too, instinct and muse. And I got really nervous about sharing my data.

And I didn't want to do it because it does feel like that's like the last barrier between you and this universe that you really don't have a lot of insight and transparency into. And so I think it's kind of a combination of we don't have regulations around privacy. We definitely don't have a way for people to consent into being recorded, and that's being worsened by the current atmosphere around AI, the AI assistance, where it does feel like you don't really own anything anymore. You don't own your image necessarily. You don't own your own data. And I think the combination of the meta-glasses, the AI assistance, it's really a complicated atmosphere. And it would be wonderful to get some sense of privacy for consumers,

but it doesn't seem like any of the companies want to move toward that. I'm curious, like, in an ideal world, what would the correct regulatory framework look like to you of, like, getting consent frameworks, how these things should work, whether or not you can and can't record? I mean, it almost feels like we've kind of stumbled into this path. It's really hard to go back,

but start with smartphones is only accelerating. But I'm curious what the eye. ideal setup would look like to you? I mean, I think it's really difficult because it's one of those situations where you can have a law, right? Like, don't record people in public. You know, Japan has something like that. And people can follow it or they don't have to.

And there aren't really strict penalties, I think, for people not following certain laws similar to that one. And so I think you could just have something in place where it's like you have to have consent from the other person in order to record them or the social media platform. could do a whole lot of work here by making sure that the people posting these videos of other people have the consent to post those videos. But that's again, you know, the social media companies have quite different incentives than the consumer in terms of content and what's being shared. So, I mean, it's just as simple as that. Just have consent to be recorded and make sure

that when people are in public, they know when they're being recorded. But yeah, that's complicated by things like the flock cameras as, you know, the quote-unquote surveillance state. But yeah, definitely at the consumer level, we could have some sort of law there. It really could be just that easy, but the social media companies would have to change some of their incentives, yeah. And when engagement makes revenue go up? Yeah, I think it reduces risk. So I think younger folks, I mean, really all folks of all ages, I think a lot of people are more. much less willing to try stuff. There's definitely this big fear of being cringe. There's a fear of I'm going to get made fun of because it is, I mean, if you have, I've had a little like internet

campaign where somebody was making fun of me and it's really hard. And so I think there is this sense of because of the power of the social media, the power of the algorithm, it feels very scary to put yourself out there, which is really the way that you grow and you try new things. Like you have to kind of just take big risks and take big leaps. And because we're constantly being watched and because you never really know if somebody's going to be recording you and you're trying your new thing out, it can prevent you from trying and prevent you from taking risks that you might have otherwise if you were not being recorded. Do you think the wearables have a legitimate shot of replacing phones or at least like augmenting our total phone usage? I mean, I'll be curious for what's next. for phones. Like, I'm not totally sure how long we can keep using this. It feels very archaic,

you know, the phone compared to everything else that's going on. So I feel like we'll have some new iteration. I don't totally know what that'll look like. I mean, if you look at old movies, right, like it would be a hologram that pops up from your watch and then you talk to it that way. It might be eyeglasses. I find that a bit far-fetched, but, I mean, AirPods used to be far-fetched, right? So I'm not totally sure what the features can all look like, but I do think we'll move away from phones, yeah. Yeah. I mean, my biggest issue with the phone is, and it's AirPods have augmented this a little bit where you don't have to like look at the phone to answer the phone call, for example. But just by nature of how addicting social media is and scrolling, anytime I grab my phone to do like useful or necessary thing, whether it's text back a friend, I need to order something on Amazon. the propensity to then end up on Instagram for 20 minutes or scrolling on Twitter or just

like wasting time versus the thing I noticed with the, I don't, it's not like I wear the glasses that much, but if I answer a phone call or even like ask a meta-a-I, like something about restaurant I'm going to for lunch or whatever, the temptation to look at the little black box in your pocket is just, it's not there when you don't have. have to pick it up. So that's the one positive externality I will give wearables is they don't like hit that same. Right. Like that's smartphone addiction. You can wean off of it a little bit. And I also think old people wearing glasses that can tell them like how to get from point A to point. Like watching my grandparents try to use Google Maps is just it doesn't work, right, versus

having some smart thing tell them walk there. You can see a world where people who like aren't as tech native benefit from ease of use of that. But then what's the tradeoff of that on all the data privacy stuff we just talked about? It's nuanced and weird and I don't know. But I'm pretty anti-smartphone as a thing, and I'm open to next step that gets rid of a lot of those problems. You're anti-smartphone, but pro ads and pro-wearables. I have a range. Yeah.

my opinions on things. And it sounds, it can sound somewhat contradictory. I, my biggest, my biggest, my biggest issue with the phone is I find it a little bit disgusting how much time I spend on it. I think it's like, I think it's a total time suck. It really does. And if you think about the way our brains are designed, we've never, we're not supposed to be using things as powerful. Like our evolutionary capabilities have not caught up to our current environment. And so, I mean, it's, it's really, really hard to pull yourself from any form of tech. And I think you have to have good discipline. You have to have good frameworks for it. But it's hard. And it's designed by some of the smartest people in the world to keep you hooked. And so I definitely feel the same way with like, you know, the tradeoffs of social media where you can like learn so much stuff. And then there's all this garbage that other people are posting the slop. The tradeoff at the phone where we are so connected. And you can like we're able to video chat right now. And that's like also a cool technology. But. There are so many tradeoffs that I think we don't necessarily talk about how to navigate them

or even really talk about the tradeoffs too much in general. Yeah. In a way that's constructive, yeah. My whole take on I'm pro within reason, pro ads, actually not within reason. I'm cool with targeted ads and have better or worse given access to most of my data. But I really hate using a phone is I almost view those as like they get me closer to outcome I want. without me having to spend way more time digging through this thing or just messing around and a lot.

It's like, okay. That actually does make sense. Am I willing to give up data sovereignty to reclaim time? I think so. Do you feel like you should have to? Like, I would like to have it both ways where you can opt out of this, but then you end up, like, I had a joke before you came on the show talking about how, like, Europe has a very opt-in. You could say Europe is like maxing on opt-in versus America Max is on opt-in.

opt out. And there's nothing worse than just navigating the internet when you're in like Poland. And you have to click through 27 different things. The website looks like it looks like it's from 2005. I feel like it just feels gross. And it doesn't really work that well. Is that a better, that's a way worse user experience. But I would rather give up my data than have that. So I don't know if there's a middle ground. It's, you know, maybe some of the agenic that I'm pretty bearish on the wholeogenic shopping. I think people actually like to look at things they're shopping for. You think people like to shop?

Yeah. Yeah. It's a little. Shocker. Shocker. That one is hard for me when they start talking about that. I'm like what the guys need to stop. Stop talking.

It's like yeah. I'm not even like the primary like shopper demographic, but you know what? If it's like a Sunday and I'm in Soho and I want to go buy some new jeans, it's like a fairly enjoyable experience. It's not like, oh, fuck. Like I need to get back and start vibe coding more slot. So let's minimize time and rag and bone. No, that's the most, like, Silicon Valley brain rot take of all time. Yeah, there's a lot of that right now coming out of there.

Yeah. And I think also, like, they could have different. I'm not totally sure. Maybe it's like they're just trying to get the primary users on first. I get the people who they think are going to be sickiest. But I really don't understand the restaurant reservation thing. I really don't. Yeah, not to keep harping on that.

But, like, I, for example, keep getting. denied by my insurance. And I would love to have an AI assistant that could talk to my insurance and be like, hey, she pays you a ton of money. Could you please, like, get her into a primary care doctor? That would be the ideal use case rather than somebody booking me at Carbone at 5 p.m. or whatever. Okay. So here's a question. Are you willing to give all your health data to an AI assistant if you never have to deal with just health insurance, if you never have to deal with all the like health insurance, I need to get reimbursed. I need a doctor's appointment. Is this the. and network, if that's automated into end because like Blue Cross Blue Shield has their own

music assistant, are you cool with that or not? I mean, if it was an internal bot, which I know a lot of, like, that big law firm, they're not doing a bot, but like they're developing their own model. Morgan and Morgan. Is that them? Yeah. I think there's a couple of doing it. But, I mean, I think a lot of the firms are going to start to develop their own versions of like chat bots

and then also their own versions of these little assistants. So ideally it would be internal to the insurance company, but I just don't ever know if that's going to happen. You know, I feel like that's sort of what I pay them for, so they go and talk to doctors for me. So ideally there would be that interface. But I would be a little nervous about giving it to an AI assistant. Yeah. So if it was a, if your insurance company had its own version of muse that stayed within the health sphere, fine. But having third-party

Like, chatgy-BT agent, right. Like, you would not want another big tech agent coming and seeing all that and going with it. But if it stayed siloed within the domain, it should be in. It's probably fine. Yeah, I mean, but there's straight-offs to that, too. Like, it could end up, like, the streaming situation where all of a sudden we have to talk to, like, 75 AI assistants to do anything. Like, how we have to, you know, sign up for 75 streaming services to watch anything. So I'm aware that that's not a perfect solution to our.

problem. I mean, I don't know if it's just like one government bot that has access to all this stuff. I don't know. I mean, it could be like a sort of read-write situation like plaid with financial data. So, yeah, I'm not sure. It's tricky. We talked before you came on a little bit about some of the, like we spent most of this conversation talking about consumers, data, wearables. There's also bigger, call it societal privacy issues with, like, police forces. For example, flock safety has obviously been in the news a lot lately for a lot of different reasons. And you see on one side, you see on one side, oh, there's early evidence suggesting crime rates are dropping in areas that have flock. And then on the other side, there's been multiple police officers stall.

walking women by using flock, which is obviously really bad. I'm curious, like, how do you think about the trade-off between, it's kind of like the, oh, GDP number is going up. That looks really good, but wait, everybody's miserable on an individual basis. Okay, like, crime is going down, but also, like, these 26 women had their, like, ex-boyfriend stalk them or a cop thought they were cute at coffee shop and was looking them up. That's really bad.

Like, what's, where are you on the spectrum of this is preventing more crime? there's individual really bad cases, like net positive, net negative, should we block it all? Do you accept some level of bad individual outcomes for broader safety? Like, what do you think? I mean, I think it's creating some reactivity. Like, I've heard of stories where people will monitor the flock cameras, and then they'll see, like, a little thing happen, and they think it's a crime, and they'll go react, and it wasn't a crime.

It was just a person doing something. So I think it's creating a lot of situations that's done. have to exist in the first place. I think there's always been some elements of security cameras. A lot of stores have them. A lot of streets have them. But I think with Locke, again, it's not totally clear where the data is going. It's not totally clear why a private company would be doing this. So I don't like that part. Again, I think like, you know, if anything, if we should have any element of surveillance, it shouldn't be done by a private company. Yeah. Last question.

What would have to change for you to feel comfortable wearing, like, the glasses? I would need a use case for them. I don't need to record my walks or where I'm going or the people around me. I just record my videos of me talking about economics. I just, I don't need them. So the thing that would have to change is I need them. Yeah. They actually need to be useful and not just performative.

They need to be useful for me and they're not. Yeah. Well, Kyla, thank you so much for coming on the show. Thanks for having me. This is awesome. For the last six years, aspiring influencers have tried to turn the rest of the world in content. And now recording devices are turning the world into training data. Don't get me wrong.

I'll probably still rep my metaglases if I can get the battery to start working again. It's been a mixed user experience so far. But I am thinking twice about what I'm willing to record and when. and also candidly, like, what is the perception that people around me have of guy with meta glasses on? The vibes are probably negative. So, cool tool, good for society. I, you know, we'll see. So my question is, what do you think? Would you wear smart glasses? Would you be comfortable with somebody wearing these around you? Text or leave us a voicemail at 201, 472, 3656.

And if there's another story, you want us to break down, send that to. I'm Jack Rains. See you next week. If you win a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies.

Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your Payday for Life ticket today. Raffle number RAF 157-3916. Please play responsibly.