111–120 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in an all-party consent state, and would like to keep it that way. I don't want to be traced through other people's recordings, particularly through something that is easy to always have on.
So what is your solution to the dilemma I pose? Forced memory degradation or prevention of memory transfer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
That it's allowed in other countries makes these glasses much worse, as it probably also means you have less legal options against their use (and the equivalent uses of phones). I'm a bit astonished, too. I wonder how people deal with creeps in those countries who film and photograph women without their consent on the beach, etc. After all, that's the primary use case for such spyware devices, which used to be available online long before Facebook and Ray Ban suggested them.
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…
Also, I would point out that the advent of police cameras has by no means ended controversies over police brutality. It has simply revealed what should have been obvious: we do not agree about what constitues police brutality. I expect the same would be true when it comes to sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in an all-party consent state, and would like to keep it that way. I don't want to be traced through other people's recordings, particularly through something that is easy to always have on.
So what is your solution to the dilemma I pose? Forced memory degradation or prevention of memory transfer?
However I think it's predictable that if I lived in a place with a significant number of those super-augmented people, and I wasn't one of them, the quality of my life would be extremely dependent on their attitude towards me. There would be extreme power asymmetry. I could only hope they were kind, as I'd have next to no power in that world.
If I was one of them as well, then I think it's difficult to extrapolate from current human experience what society would be like. It could go in a lot of different ways. Some SF literature explores these questions.
The current human world, with the addition of some people having high-tech, always-on sensors and computers analysing everything around them is a bit like the first scenario above: Some super-augmented, others not. As the tech becomes progressively more advanced, those who don't have the tech can only hope those who own and control the tech are kind, (that's not generally the camera wearers, by the way), because it creates a substantial power asymmetry, which keeps increasing as the technology advances and is distributed unevenly.
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 Fac…
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.
> I don't think most people in public will even notice that these aren't normal Ray Bans Most people will not even be aware such devices exist. Here, on HN, there's an assumption that everyone is or will soon be up-to-date with tech news. But, the world outside of HN is way, way larger. I bet most people won't know what is going on even if they notice the eyeglasses have an LED that's on. It's not like an LED is a un…
On decoy surveillance cameras they'll usually have a blinking or solid LED on them because the trope of "blinking red LED means it's recording" is so widespread. That's been used in film, self checkouts, body cameras, surveillance systems, etc. I don't know what indication would be more likely to signal a recording in progress short of a loudspeaker screaming "YOU ARE BEING RECORDED RIGHT NOW".
I think it's far more likely that the general public will be unaware of the existing ways they are being surveilled.
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.
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 world you're describing sounds like hell to me. I'd rather become Amish than live in it. Also, I would point out that the advent of police cameras has by no means ended controversies over police brutality. It has simply revealed what should have been obvious: we do not agree about what constitues police brutality. I expect the same would be true when it comes to sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world you're describing sounds like hell to me. I'd rather become Amish than live in it. Also, I would point out that the advent of police cameras has by no means ended controversies over police brutality. It has simply revealed what should have been obvious: we do not agree about what constitues police brutality. I expect the same would be true when it comes to sex.
That doesn’t make sense, at least staying with your second sentence. Many examples of police brutality have come to light that would have otherwise been hidden had we had no cameras.
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.
We'll need to wear hats like this as a countermeasure https://hackaday.com/2020/02/28/using-ir-leds-to-hide-in-pla...