121–130 of 207 posts
I often bump into people I know on the street but can’t place their faces. A lot of them get offended when I don’t immediately recognize them, even though I remember who they are—just not what they look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.
Private businesses, however, can choose to refuse service for any reason as long as it’s not discriminatory. If enough businesses collaborated to create a “no camera glasses” policy, people might be less likely to buy them. This could keep the market small. Perhaps a good approach would be to pressure businesses about this. Frankly they probably don’t want pervasive recording of their employees anyway.
Also, how would you differentiate banning cameras on glasses vs cameras on smartphones. It could get murky
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Private businesses, however, can choose to refuse service for any reason as long as it’s not discriminatory. If enough businesses collaborated to create a “no camera glasses” policy, people might be less likely to buy them. This could keep the market small. Perhaps a good approach would be to pressure businesses about this. Frankly they probably don’t want pervasive recording of their employees anyway.
I highly doubt that businesses will take a stand against these camera glasses. The kind of people that buy these smart glasses are usually a) wealthy, and b) not very frugal. What business would want to turn away the people with lots of money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the biggest mobile use case where you don't want to be secretly recorded in public? This was a big concern with the original Google Glass.
Massive problem in Japan where the issue of sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. I suspect it's one of the reasons why Japan isn't on the list of supported countries for the Meta glasses. I hope it stays that way.
These are also issues where we live, they just don't get the same media attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s not illegal. meta raybans will detect the tape blocking a light sensor and not allow you take photos.
That is a feature Meta has implemented, but those protections were quickly defeated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... by using your own glasses with a hidden camera? Sounds like a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
”I would feel pretty silly if my solution uses its own camera. So I'll be avoiding that.” From the GitHub link.
Not a creep here and use my Meta glasses to record my normal non-creepy life and life experiences. They are really convenient and useful (just suck cause they break easily either from software updates to water splashes)!
It is interesting to see the consensus that nobody is enthusiastic about meta Ray-Bans except Zuckerberg. It's creepy.
An eye for an eye and soon everyone's blind...
I have no experience in this area, so I’ll just ask a noob question: Can we make it so that if someone is looking at me through smart-glasses without my consent, my glasses respond with some form of interference that gives them a tiny headache?
And if I do grant someone consent to record me, I can just turn my glasses off.
And of course, my glasses don’t record anything, so they wouldn’t be hurting my own eyes.