Live data from Hacker News

Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

reuters.com

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#101
post #94

For those who worry about the camera and your privacy, how do phone cameras differ in this respect with everyone taking and uploading pictures, videos, snaps, and tiktoks in public spaces?

There is no substantial difference, but the glasses hide it better and therefore have more nefarious uses. Making pictures of someone without consent is prohibited by law in most European countries ( Edit: Not quite right, only in some ), and people will react negatively if you try to do it. Glasses that looked almost identical to these Ray Bans used to be available from Chinese wholesale sellers. It has always been…

Taking pictures of someone without consent is generally legal in Europe, publishing them is generally not. There’s a bunch of discussion on the web, this seems authoritative: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specifi...

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#102
post #42

I don't mean to go too much against the narrative in this thread, but aren't cameras on glasses necessary to achieve AR? Are people concerned about these glasses just because it's Facebook, or is there broader opposition to AR technology?

It's possible to do AR without at the same time streaming and recording the video stream to a social network.

Almost nobody will feel violated if a blind person has camera-based prosthetic eyesight... unless it's also recording for others to gawk at later.

I think the key privacy distinction isn't whether there's a device using a camera to augment vision. It's whether the glasses are recording for publication via Facebook at one extreme, versus just processing locally to perform AR and discarding the stream at the other extreme.

Where personal information may be involved for functionality, ideally it should use sophisticated privacy-preserving data queries, for example looking up faces and gaits without revealing to the cloud who is being looked up (technically challenging but undoubtedly possible to build).

Even if the video is not published, but it's streamed to Facebook for, say, demographic manipulation analysis, race estimation, genetic healthcare analytics (affecting other individual people's insurance premiums based on what it sees), juicy gaffes that are "recommended" by ML to be posted as probable high-engagement rage-tweets, customer service profiling, that sort thing, it's going to make being around a person wearing these things high-anxiety for a lot of people. The list of possible dark applications is endless. For good reason: It has the power to ruin someone's life, and certainly end or prevent a career, should someone else wish to do that.

Just recording the video (or even audio) without publishing it, purely for the owner's use, could be a problem if it's pervasive. It might be used later against you when you thought you were ok being relaxed and informal without paying heightened attention to your every action. Perhaps someone you thought was a friend decided later to use their private recording as evidence for a character assassination campaign or whatever. Imagine if everything you said, every gesture, every eyebrow movement might be plucked out of context and turned into an outrage tweet at any time after it happened. Panopticon is a problem. People need informal contexts where it's ok to not be on heightened alert at least some of the time.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#103

For those who worry about the camera and your privacy, how do phone cameras differ in this respect with everyone taking and uploading pictures, videos, snaps, and tiktoks in public spaces?

I have no skin in this game but the most common answer to this is that it's a lot easier to tell when someone is pointing a phone at you, unless they're REALLY being sneaky. With glasses this becomes impossible.

I see this argument a lot as well, and it frankly makes no sense to me. All too often I've been at small to medium sized gatherings (5 - 10 people) where someone will record me/the general group and I'll only have realized later after seeing it on social media. Now imagine how often you're inadvertently captured on camera just walking around in public.

I can concede the case of 1-on-1 interactions, where a smartphone is much more noticeable than smart glasses, but IMO the march towards AR glasses is inevitable. Eventually we'll get to a point where either people will be able to recognize smart glasses in those situations based off of prior experience, or indicators to distinguish smart glasses become standardized.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#104

I know this will get DVed but this seems like one of those things we'll look back on in 20yrs and "mostly" wonder what all the fuss was about. AR cameras seem inevitable. They're strange today but ask any 2006 non-techie if they'd consider carrying a pocket computer and they'd laugh at you. Now they all have one and you'd likely only get them to part with it from their cold dead fingers. The privacy issues are a huge…

Eventually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entire_History_of_You

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#105

This is exactly what I thought when I first saw them. The LED can be easily covered, and they look too much like normal sunglasses for the average person to notice. Day after day, my loathing for Facebook grows.

It's not FB. It's progress. You can replace them with any other name in the world. It just happens to be that Facebook announced this rather obvious technology.

In fact, Snapchat has had a similar product for a while with Spectacles[0].

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12569182

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#106
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for me to articulate how this makes me feel. As someone who values anonymity and, for no particular reason, would prefer not to be photographed and have my movements tracked, I feel like I am being forced from public spaces. Regulated CCTV coverage of certain areas is one thing. This is untracked, unlimited surveillance by a private company whose goals and motives are completely removed from any semblance o…

Easy with the conspiracy theories. They may know your height, your eye/hair color, your skin color, your license plate #, where you live, where you work, where you shop, who you hang out with, etc, but you'll still be totally anonymous when they sell that information to whoever pays for it. They swear!

When the cameras and processing are good enough, the watchers may also know your heart rate, breathing rate, who you glance at that goes by and which ones raise your heart rate, when you smile, when you frown, your pupil dilation, what items you browse in physical shops even if you don't buy, everything that can be picked out by lip reading, whether you look like you got a good night's sleep; trends in all these factors over time as they see you from multiple cameras across the months and years, and can probably predict when you will lose your job and if you're getting a divorce before you, your spouse and your employer knows these things, and which cancer you have before it's diagnosed (but will use it to raise/deny your insurance rather than actually help you).

Of course it will all be presented only to trustworthy researchers with impeccable standards of ethics who have your interests first, such as the advertising unit, and the ministry of happiness and fair opportunity for all.

All data requests from law enforcement fishing crews, "surgical" tactical vote manipulators, blackmailers, credit reference agencies, insurance companies, pre-crime detection centres, and religious morality police will of course be turned down, as that would be unethical. No price could possibly be high enough...

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#107
post #91

I know this will get DVed but this seems like one of those things we'll look back on in 20yrs and "mostly" wonder what all the fuss was about. AR cameras seem inevitable. They're strange today but ask any 2006 non-techie if they'd consider carrying a pocket computer and they'd laugh at you. Now they all have one and you'd likely only get them to part with it from their cold dead fingers. The privacy issues are a huge…

The fuss is about the "Facebook" bit, not the "smart glasses" bit. I want smart glasses that are mine, not Mark's.

It’s not your smart glasses. Its everyone else’s.

Facebook will know you are in Idaho this week, not because you have a Facebook account, but because they’ve matched you in a shadow profile of a university friend that posted a picture of you 15 years ago, and you’ve been picked up on Joe Sixpack’s camera.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#108
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Brin predicted that surveillance would be impossible to control in his 1998 book "The Transparent Society", going on to argue that there are two possible futures: one in which the masses are under 100% surveillance, while elites can act behind closed doors, and one in which the masses can also see what the elites are doing ("sousveillance"). I'm still hoping that there is a way out, but Brin is looking more and…

Looks like we'll need to become part of this elite in order to have any peace.

This is HN, everyone is trying to become part of the elite here.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#109

For those who worry about the camera and your privacy, how do phone cameras differ in this respect with everyone taking and uploading pictures, videos, snaps, and tiktoks in public spaces?

I have no skin in this game but the most common answer to this is that it's a lot easier to tell when someone is pointing a phone at you, unless they're REALLY being sneaky. With glasses this becomes impossible.

> it's a lot easier to tell when someone is pointing a phone at you

What are you supposed to do with this information though? Ok, so now you know that you're being recorded (presumably in a public place) - what's the next move, and how does it bring about a result that is practically different to you never being aware of the recording?

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#110
post #19
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with these is that they're essentially masquerading as normal sunglasses. I don't think most people in public will even notice that these aren't normal Ray Bans. Google Glass wasn't effective in part due to the fact that they were obvious to those around the wearer. That's not the case with these, which is frankly terrifying.

It's hard for me to articulate how this makes me feel. As someone who values anonymity and, for no particular reason, would prefer not to be photographed and have my movements tracked, I feel like I am being forced from public spaces. Regulated CCTV coverage of certain areas is one thing. This is untracked, unlimited surveillance by a private company whose goals and motives are completely removed from any semblance o…

Not just Facebook. Look at ring cameras, or dash cameras. The curtain twitching has been weaponised, partly by Facebook (platform to post pictures of “the wrong sorts”), but by other companies providing those cameras too.
Post reply on HN