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

891–900 of 967 posts

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#891

Post by JohnFen »

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…

> merely point out that this is, in my view, no different than the already existing surveillance we live under.

Just because a Bad Thing is already foisted on us to the point where it's impossible to avoid doesn't make it OK to make that situation even worse.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#892

Post by JohnFen »

boffinAudio wrote: post #810
blagie wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.... somewhat .... In the US specifically, there are protected first amendment rights. However, plenty of people have genuine reason to be concerned. Stalkers. Witness protection. Etc. Having managed large datasets, these things come up fairly often. There's an incredible diversity of potential problems. It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue like this: "Well, don't go out into public then"

>somewhat Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to record anything you can perceive in public ... without that right we cannot exercise political freedom or our rights as individuals for redress. >It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue like this: "Well, don't go out into public then" Of course it is. They have equal rights - and equal opportunity, therefore, to express - or not express - th…

> Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to record anything you can perceive in public

I completely disagree that this is (or should be considered) a universal human right at all.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#893

Post by ActorNightly »

wolverine876 wrote: post #708
ActorNightly wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, just because China did it doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. The real bad part of Chinese system are the laws that govern what is bad and what the punishment - the surveillance in itself alone is neutral at worst. More information never hurts. Secondly, this would be "society filming society", without the government being involved. I really see only positive with the mass adoption of these things. When I go o…

> More information never hurts. How do you reach that conclusion? > this would be "society filming society" It would also be a corporation filming private citizens on a very large scale (and government can obtain data from corporations). > If someone needs the fear of being recorded, and put online and losing their job to not act like asshole, then so be it. People are attacked and shamed for many things that are pri…

>How do you reach that conclusion?

Because the hypothetical damage a bad member of society could do outweighs the potential risk of private life details leaking (and any effect resulting from this) for good members of society.

Say you live in a neighborhood with 50 people, and nobody knows anything about each other. Then one day, a hacker comes in an publishes a lot of private details about every single resident - grocery shopping lists, movie preferences, political leanings, website search history, even private videos and photos. However, it turns out that one of the residents is a serial rapist, while another one deals drugs. Getting information on those two is extremely valuable to the neighborhood, even if it came at a price of reduced privacy.

>It would also be a corporation filming private citizens on a very large scale (and government can obtain data from corporations).

I get the whole "government bad" liberterian sentiment, but this never really plays out in reality. I mean, lived 4 years under a literal fascist and came out largely ok. There is enough due process in place and good people in the government to avoid misuse of power on a wide scale. Furthermore, the government is a combination of incompetency and not enough man power for the average citizen to worry about.

As for corporations, most people are ok with data being collected about them and used for things like advertising, because they still continue to use the products and apps, because the value add of those is worth more than privacy (which many people don't even understand what it is).

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#894

Post by JohnFen »

boffinAudio wrote: post #809
gumballindie wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry - I am confused. Are you saying that we should accept creeps lurking around taking photos of people?

You should accept the fact that, while out and about in public, you have no expectation of privacy. In your own home - sure. Such is the price of freedom.

> Such is the price of freedom.

No. This is an example of reducing the freedom of some in order to increase the liberties of others.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#895

Post by blagie »

boffinAudio wrote: post #810
blagie wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.... somewhat .... In the US specifically, there are protected first amendment rights. However, plenty of people have genuine reason to be concerned. Stalkers. Witness protection. Etc. Having managed large datasets, these things come up fairly often. There's an incredible diversity of potential problems. It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue like this: "Well, don't go out into public then"

>somewhat Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to record anything you can perceive in public ... without that right we cannot exercise political freedom or our rights as individuals for redress. >It's not reasonable to tell everyone who has an issue like this: "Well, don't go out into public then" Of course it is. They have equal rights - and equal opportunity, therefore, to express - or not express - th…

> Its a universal human right, actually, to be able to record anything you can perceive in public ...

No. It's not. Here: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

If you believe something is a right, and most other people don't, it's definitely not a universal right.

What is an established universal human right is: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

> without that right we cannot exercise political freedom or our rights as individuals for redress.

Yes. We can. We've done it since long before cameras existed, even. Where I live is moving towards a balance where, very grossly oversimplified:

- Government officials have very little privacy protection, and first amendment trumps privacy

- Private individuals have a lot of privacy protection, and privacy trumps first amendment

That seems reasonable.

I'd like corporations to have no privacy either, but that's not where we're landing.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#897

Post by ActorNightly »

esafak wrote: post #459
vunderba wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised you're not already aware that this is already the norm. The number of cc style cameras in London alone should give you pause. If we're already dealing with ubiquitous recording in public , I'd rather give some of that power back to individuals rather than the government.

It is not the norm everywhere and, in any case, we should push back. It gives me no joy to walk past video surveillance cameras. They stick out like sore thumbs to me and make me feel treated like a potential criminal. I believe we reclaim no power by recording our fellow citizens going about their daily lives. We merely augment the corpus of corporations and governments. My beef with these smart glasses is that whil…

In case my top level comment was not clear:

if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy outside of physical interaction in your immediate space outside your body (and even then, on crowded public transport, this is not the case). If someone can see what you are doing, there is no difference between that and them recording it. If someone can hear what your are saying, there is no difference between that and them recording it.

If you don't agree, you are essentially saying that you are entitled to do and say what you want, but gathering any evidence of you doing so is not allowed, which not only doesn't make sense but is also pretty indicative that you are looking to be up to no good.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#898

Post by dvngnt_ »

scrum-treats wrote: post #886
pharmakom wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First company to crack this will have Apple like market dominance.

If I recall correctly, Google already did. I also remember people largely pushing back against hyper-surveillance tech such as this.

google is an innovator but they don't really stick with things if they're not immediate hits.

meta has privacy concerns but they've made a name for themselves in XR so this move isn't out of nowhere and with apple joining soon it's more normalized. apple wants us to strap a hmd to watch our kid blow out the candles

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#899

Post by gnicholas »

pulpfictional wrote: post #867
throwaway837367 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the optical industry. I do R&D/quality control for a lens manufacturer and agree Luxottica is an awful company, but your comment is way off base. It's actually quite wrong. Your "zyl" acetate frames aren't higher quality. Modern acetate is stronger, lighter, less brittle, less subject to warping from temperature change, and more resistant to UV damage which impacts brittleness and color. 40 years of materia…

Where do I go to for quality sunglasses?

I used to have Ray-Bans, but only buy Maui Jims these days. I tried Revos, which I had always thought of as very high-quality, but they were not good (lenses reflected lots of light from behind me, as if they lacked an anti-reflective coating).

But even some MJs are not as good as the price would suggest. I have tried $300 MJs that didn't have spring hinges. They were just like regular lousy hinges.

Costco has a selection of Maui Jim sunglasses for ~$100, which is far below retail.

Re: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses

#900

Post by csmiller »

pulpfictional wrote: post #867
throwaway837367 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the optical industry. I do R&D/quality control for a lens manufacturer and agree Luxottica is an awful company, but your comment is way off base. It's actually quite wrong. Your "zyl" acetate frames aren't higher quality. Modern acetate is stronger, lighter, less brittle, less subject to warping from temperature change, and more resistant to UV damage which impacts brittleness and color. 40 years of materia…

Where do I go to for quality sunglasses?

Jacques Marie Mage are very nice, I'm also a fan of Matsuda.
Post reply on HN