Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#191

Post by vel0city »

Lucasoato wrote: post #131
paul7986 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to this (smart glass privacy debate) is Apple releasing smart glasses that automatically anonymize anyone in your photos/videos who isn’t a friend or family member with you at the time (it could be done automatically as Apple knows your friends/family members' faces already). All else appear as random faces, completely removed, a blurred out crowd to whatever privacy config options they offer and you cho…

This isn't a solution, they would still have the data. Companies can't be trusted, they'll do what is more convenient for them, we need to remove the problem at the root by not allowing people to take pictures/videos if not permitted.

I've struggled with this in many public spaces even without having a camera on my glasses. Should I feel guilty that some kids are incidentally in my photos when my kids are on the playground when I take a photo of them? Should I never take photos in public because other unwilling people might be included unless I've explicitly asked them?

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#192

Post by thenthenthen »

Bender wrote: post #92

Semi-related question. Is there a method to print a picture on a t-shirt that can only be viewed by a camera and not be the naked eye? If so I would like to print images on the front and back of the shirt that would get the glasshole or cell phone cameras banned from their platforms.

I saw some painting a while a go, looked just like random dots, so I took a picture with my smartphone and that revealed a portrait! Pretty amazing, must have been some moire thing indeed

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#193

Post by Intralexical »

Bender wrote: post #92

Semi-related question. Is there a method to print a picture on a t-shirt that can only be viewed by a camera and not be the naked eye? If so I would like to print images on the front and back of the shirt that would get the glasshole or cell phone cameras banned from their platforms.

Compare human cone cell spectral sensitivity to the camera modules inside the glasses. [0][1]

Usually digital cameras have some major differences from human eyes, particularly near UV and IR. Find dyes with spectral albedo that integrates to the same strengths for (most) humans' cones, but not for the glasses.

Though human eyes have pretty good dynamic range, and some degree of variation. Maybe add dithering around the edges.

[0]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cone-fundamentals-wi...

[1]: https://www.strollswithmydog.com/camera-spectral-sensitivity...

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#194

Post by Intralexical »

icoder wrote: post #64

Comparable to what I read someone say about AI the other day: we're living in the small sliver of history where smart-glasses with cameras are technically feasible yet are still (kind of) detectable.

There's no reason why stealth technology should have to advance faster than detection technology. In fact, in many applications with strong incentives to advance both stealth and detection capabilities, the modern world has trended towards being increasingly transparent.

If we culturally/economically wanted it, I'm sure we could all have cheap nonlinear junction detectors in our pockets.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#195

Post by AlecSchueler »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #190
AlecSchueler wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. These are also issues where we live, they just don't get the same media attention.

Do companies sell phones/cameras that take photos without making a sound? Cause they all make sounds in Japan because of how bad the sex pest problem is.

The suggestion seems to be that lax governmental attitudes towards the voyeurism risk indicates that the risk itself is lower but I don't believe that's necessarily true or that it would contradict my statement above even if it were.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#196

Post by louthy »

okincilleb wrote: post #165
louthy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ray-Banned is a good pun, but might bring you legal trouble. I’d go with Ban-Rays

But you’d agree Ray-Banned is better

Only because I’m a pun addict. Don’t take my biased opinion on board.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#198

Post by littlestymaar »

hackingonempty wrote: post #186
littlestymaar wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some right to record in public may be protected by the current jurisprudence invoking the first amendment, but the first amendment itself obviously doesn't say anything about the right to record in public: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,…

Recording is writing, which is speech, which is protected.

“Performance is speech, murder is performance, hence murder is protected”

Fortunately it doesn't work like that.

Also not every speech is protected, you aren't allowed to leak classified info even though doing that is purely speech.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#199

Post by ghaff »

array_key_first wrote: post #181
ghaff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want? I don't know. Outside of draconian regulation and punishment I don't see how you really stop aside from some level of social pressure/norms which can work to a degree. (No, you don't film/livestream the dinner party among friends that you are at.) People post photos from social events all the time. That ship has mostly sailed. Video and audio is mostly just an additional increment.

I'm not understanding how limiting data collection is draconian regulation. Recording in public is a huge problem overall and is slowly decaying our society. People don't do anything anymore because nothing is sacred. Have you been to a club lately? It's just a room of 500 people standing there. It gets worse the younger and younger the people are. Kids these days are too petrified to leave their homes. Every aspect…

I'm not sure what I wrote about data collection. But public data/photo/video availability is pretty much a thing and it seems impossible to prevent. Seems you just have to deal with it.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#200

Post by array_key_first »

ghaff wrote: post #199
array_key_first wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not understanding how limiting data collection is draconian regulation. Recording in public is a huge problem overall and is slowly decaying our society. People don't do anything anymore because nothing is sacred. Have you been to a club lately? It's just a room of 500 people standing there. It gets worse the younger and younger the people are. Kids these days are too petrified to leave their homes. Every aspect…

I'm not sure what I wrote about data collection. But public data/photo/video availability is pretty much a thing and it seems impossible to prevent. Seems you just have to deal with it.

Those are inseparable from data collection, because that is data collection. The only reason we have to worry about things like Flock is because there's people who will die on the hill that filming people in public is okay, even when corporations do it and use that data for your oppression.

I just don't understand how it's impossible to prevent. We haven't even tried. This is a "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" sort of mentality, which is as lazy as it is harmful.

There's plenty of things in public that you CAN do, but which we prevent pretty well. For example, every human being has the ability to flash anyone, at any time. However, we do a pretty good job preventing that via the law, despite the fact there are absolutely zero technical or physical limitations to pulling out your dick. If anything, it's one of the most human things you can do - humans have penises and vaginas because they are animals.

And yet, despite the availability of such actions, I don't have to worry much about seeing a veiny cock at the local starbucks. But you know what I do have to worry about? Being filmed, and that video being uploaded to hundreds of computers globally in real time, where it can be used for any and all purposes. Including denying me a loan, or a job, or even imprisoning me. And humans don't even have cameras built right in to their crotch.

Post reply on HN