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

Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 463 posts

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#271

Post by hatsix »

randallsquared wrote: post #74
everdrive wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think that's fair. Smartglasses have legitimate purposes. I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.…

> Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case You then list a mere two categories. Would your argument have been similar in 2008 if told that in ten years, everyone in the economic first world would be carrying multiple cameras including a dedicated "selfie" camera at all times?

would your argument be similar if I told you that everyone in the economic first world is influenced by signals beamed down from space?

no? You think what I wrote is just a scary way to frame GPS? Maybe that's because you're part of the conspiracy!

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#272

Post by JohnFen »

randallsquared wrote: post #144
everdrive wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the point about a dedicate "selfie" camera, however I think we're conflating "percentage of users" with "varieties of use cases." I think there could be quite a cornucopia of potential use cases, but I think per capita most people will not actually be making use of these. As other commenters have pointed out, I'd be a lot more tolerant if the data were not constantly piped to Meta.

The point about a dedicated selfie camera was that in 2008, few would have considered taking selfies to be a major use case that would drive >90% of teens and adults to have a camera which has no other reasonable purpose. In the age of FaceTime calls, it would seem absurd to question why it's needed, but nothing like that was mainstream in 2008, which would lead to the same argument of "there are very few legitimate…

> However, the idea that people have a right to remember and process what they see and hear in full fidelity is pretty basic, in my opinion.

If that's what we were talking about, I'd be much less bothered. But it's not. What we're talking about is people recording others and feeding that data to a third party.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#275

Post by fragmede »

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #186
prepend wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? It seems like you must have some human involvement to train and monitor. It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).

> How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? Different situation. Facebook has to do CSAM moderation because it's a publishing platform. People will post CSAM on facebook, so they must do moderation. And "just don't have facebook" isn't a solution because every publication of any sort has to deal with this problem; Any newspaper accepting mail has this problem. (Albeit to a much more scaled down versi…

OpenAI runs ChatGPT where users submit text and photos and OpenAI generates and sends text and photos back. So users could be submitting CSAM. And yes, OpenAI could be generating CSAM. It's not limited to being a pull operation. What am I missing?

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#276

Post by deaux »

jaidhyani wrote: post #154
talkingtab wrote: post #18

Meta said the contracting "did not meet (meta's) standards". I am sure that is true. meta's "standard" is not to reveal the illegal, immoral, unethical things meta does. No matter what the harm. Maybe a company with those standards should not get our business. Oops, no wait, maybe they mean the Friedman Doctrine standards? In that case they are entitled to do any and every thing to make a profit. No matter what the h…

I used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user priva…

You're still on the koolaid, as many replies here accurately point out. Saying it's not because you're eager to defend them is lying to yourself, because you're smart enough to think of most of these replies yourself. Primarily the fact that these are contractors whose entire job is to watch smart glasses footage and the point your bringing up - even if we believe it at face value - is completely irrelevant to this post.

If you truly want to atone for your sins, you have a long way to go. I don't blame you for having worked there, I've worked at places that are only a little better than Meta (which is hard considering Meta is at the absolute bottom of the entire ladder, including Peter Thiel companies, thanks to Meta's sheer scale of carnage). But its time to completely come to terms with the reality, rather than stopping halfway to try and feel better about your resume.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#277

Post by ninth_ant »

alistairSH wrote: post #224
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the time of the publication, Meta admitted subcontracted workers might sometimes review content filmed on its smart glasses when people shared it with Meta AI. They just got fired for "piercing the veil". They committed the sin of bringing attention to the invasion of privacy.

Were/are video recordings from the glasses advertised as being E2E encrypted? Mostly, I'm just surprised that anybody would be naive enough to take a camera provided by Facebook into a sexual encounter and expect anything else.

If you don’t disable the glasses they could continue to share content. The article describes the glasses being left on a dresser and then sharing content of people without their consent, which could easily parallel into showing a sexual encounter or other privacy-sensitive scenarios.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#278

Post by thaumasiotes »

causal wrote: post #216
jaidhyani wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user priva…

The problem is that your comment and the one you're responding to can both be true: Just because the rules are heavily enforced does not mean the right rules are in place, starting with the fact that Meta is collecting this data to begin with.

> starting with the fact that Meta is collecting this data to begin with.

But that can't be the problem. They're collecting the data that users send them. To avoid collecting it despite the expressed wishes of the user, they'd need to be able to recognize it as untouchable.

And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do?

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#279

Post by bombcar »

cozzyd wrote: post #238
jaidhyani wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user priva…

Anecdotal of course, but I heard that this wasn't at all the case circa 2006 and that (then) FB employees would routinely read private messages and such. Obviously it wasn't a big company yet and probably didn't have those policies yet... (clearly the policies are there for a reason...)

That’s my recollection too - there were some high profile cases and so institutional safeguards were established. They very well may be at the forefront of it - however, it’s a side issue to what’s being discussed.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#280

Post by bombcar »

thunderfork wrote: post #248
jaidhyani wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made. So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user priva…

As someone who worked for a contractor which had Meta as a client, I disagree. All advertiser support agents were given super-read on all profiles & pages, and I never once observed a CSR being questioned on their use of this access in any way.

It’s often the case that employees are much more locked down than contractors, simply because the company is more liable for employee actions.
Post reply on HN