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

Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#851

Post by anonymouse008 »

washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

Thinking out loud:

This sounds like legislation. Mandate (with stiff penalties for violations) that any recording in the presence of a certain BLE advertised value (that's anonymized) means that all people should be removed from the scene with current image generation AI tooling? Not sure what to do about in frame vs out of frame, but perhaps this sparks something.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#852

Post by tiborsaas »

washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

Something like the scramble suit from A scanner darkly? It's based on Philip K. Dick's novel published in 1977.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aS4xhTaIPc

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#853

Post by rijoja »

washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

So that you can't use them to protect yourself against people stalking you, or to collect evidence in the case of potential crime?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#854

Post by M4v3R »

Draiken wrote: post #846
barrysteve wrote: post #828

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would he be forgetting that ? He's allowed to be aginst both glasses and city-wide survelliance. This knee-jerk attempt to annul judgment has been so heavily bred into online discussions, since roughly 2018. Our current state of recording is not a counter argument to the concept, it's a stating of the facts.

I cannot tell you why, or if in this specific instance they are forgetting or not. My point is more of a general one. The hypocrisy of the masses is real. Most only really care about the instances they can perceive and accept all other ones as long as they aren't inconvenient. I'm not trying to annul any judgements, merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live…

This lowers the barrier to take unwanted photos/videos significantly. Yes, surveillance cameras are everywhere but your everyday person does not have access to their feed (and the publicly accessible ones are not that common and usually very far away). This is different from possibly being recorded by anyone you pass by in high resolution, for their own personal use.

Also, today when a person takes a photo of you it's usually very apparent, hence most people hesitate just pointing a camera at you to shoot a picture. Tomorrow, when these become more and more popular, just a glance at someone will be enough and no one will hesitate.

Finally, this argument is basically: "oh well, we live in a crappy world already, so making it even more crappy is not a problem".

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#856

Post by iammjm »

washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

I saw some such wearables during the Hong Kong demonstrations couple of years back

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#857

Post by FloayYerBoat »

world2vec wrote: post #835
washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

In the sci-fi novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (highly recommended btw) there is a piece of tech called "abglanz" which is an identity shield mask that flickers in iridescent blurry patterns to protect a person's privacy from camera surveillance.

Similar necklace in Daemon / Freedom by Daniel Swarez.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#858

Post by spigottoday »

esafak wrote: post #198
nickthegreek wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are allowed to be annoyed. If you punch someone, or break/steal their property for recording, there are actual LEGAL consequences that could befall you. People record others all the time, there is this whole Karen phenomenon that is kinda hard not to know about..

People should not be recording others all the time. It is not consensual. This is the crux of the debate. The legality is debated, and it varies by jurisdiction: https://www.notta.ai/en/blog/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone... Don't squander your right to record in public on something as mundane and personal as a civilian minding his own business. Record a crime, at least. Otherwise the law may change and you may lose…

I don't like being recorded all the time when out in public or in stores or hospitals or other places or institutions. The thing that I find completly unacceptable is having the recording sent off to meta or google or somewhere to be analyzed and monetized without my consent. Not only do I not benefit from this I consider it a profound abuse of my privacy and autonamy. before all this invasive corporate surveillance being seen in public was a localized and ephemeral experience and privacy laws were adequate to cover this. This is no longer true. Not that I think this will happen any time soon (or ever) because, you know, money; and not enough people outraged about this or that feel safe enought to express thier outrage, but a simple fix would be that if I am not a consenting user of a corporate service like meta or google or ticktock or whatever then that service is not permited to retain or use that (personal) information in any way. So when the service recieves video it must remove or completely obsure any individuals image and audio from the video that are not current users of the service. Better yet and more feasible would be to just flag and delete the video, which puts the burden on the person making the video, where it belongs. Of course this would apply to any and all information conected to all non users of the service. To motivate compliance an automatic award of, let's say, $10,000 to an abused party would probably do the trick. If this sounds extream to you I just consider it a good start.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#859

Post by sentimentscan »

iammjm wrote: post #856
washywashy wrote: post #820

We need to invent something that does the opposite now where individuals could wear something that prevents them from showing up in someone else’s content without explicit digital consent (some sort of personal scrambler). I don’t think the LED feature listed on this product page will often be honored by most people who will use these shades

I saw some such wearables during the Hong Kong demonstrations couple of years back

Do you have a link to that?

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#860

Post by sentimentscan »

euroderf wrote: post #611
Gh0stRAT wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the light makes it VERY apparent when it's recording or taking a picture. Would you be just as uncomfortable eating lunch with someone who had their phone in their hand? It'd be much easier to surreptitiously record/photograph someone with a phone because they have no status indicator when they're recording and people inadvertently point phone lenses at each other all the time.

I vote for a flip-cover that visibly shows that the camera lens is covered. Like clip-ons, taken to the next level of dork.

In some techno clubs they put a sticker to your camera lens, so you know that you aren't recorded
Post reply on HN