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

Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

buchodi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 311 posts

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#231

Post by Forgeties79 »

Cider9986 wrote: post #76
wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #47

The company feels like the corporate embodiment of its founder.

HN was positive on him at one point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2157445 >I really applaud Zuckerberg for positively embracing all the attention that's been shouldered on him, really. I think stuff like this SNL skit or him taking his core team at Facebook to watch "The Social Network" together at a movie theatre just shows tremendous inner strength and maturity on his part. It's great to see him be able to…

Yeah 15 years ago. We also thought Twitter was going to foster a positive social revolution, increase accountability, and topple autocracies. We saw how that turned out. Uber was once loved, Airbnb was once loved, we’ve seen it over and over again. HN isn’t exceptional here.

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#232

Post by kstrauser »

flir wrote: post #228
kstrauser wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often you see someone taping a phone to their head and wearing it into a bathroom? It's sociopathic to wear spywear in a public setting.

What about bodycams on public servants? (I think the precise form factor is something of a distraction. I'm talking about cheap, tiny, always-on cameras hooked up to giant hard discs in the sky, however they're packaged).

Bodycams that just record video: I'm fine with that. There's a clear societal benefit to it, and if you see a uniformed police officer, you presume your actions are being witnessed (if only by the human police officer). I'm way less skeeved out by a policeman carrying a gun than some drunk rando in a bar.

Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club. The former, because I don't want to live in a society where police log civilians' movements. The latter, because it's creepy with civilians do it, too.

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#233

Post by RobotToaster »

tremon wrote: post #199
RobotToaster wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still common assault.

Actually, that's battery. The assault is by the person recording without consent.

How is filming someone causing physical contact or harm, or putting someone in apprehension of physical harm?

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#234

Post by flir »

kstrauser wrote: post #232
flir wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about bodycams on public servants? (I think the precise form factor is something of a distraction. I'm talking about cheap, tiny, always-on cameras hooked up to giant hard discs in the sky, however they're packaged).

Bodycams that just record video: I'm fine with that. There's a clear societal benefit to it, and if you see a uniformed police officer, you presume your actions are being witnessed (if only by the human police officer). I'm way less skeeved out by a policeman carrying a gun than some drunk rando in a bar. Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club. The…

> Bodycams that feature face recognition: Not OK, whether it's law enforcement or some weirdo at a night club.

Ok, but... you know it's inevitable, right? Shops are already doing it, the first weirdo doing it at a nightclub is probably going to be the doorman (transferring the old "do not accept checks from this man" mugshots to the digital realm), I don't know about other countries but the UK police are doing it (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-use-of-fac...).

One of the advantages of bodycams for the police is that the people they deal with get a bit better behaved when they know they're on camera. I'm saying we should have that advantage too. (This is "an armed society is a polite society" redux - a surveilled society is a polite society?)

Check out David Brin's concept of the Transparent Society. He's been banging on about this for a couple of decades, and he's a deeper thinker and more persuasive than I am. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

I stress I believe transparency is the least-worst option available to us, not the most desirable option.

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#236

Post by [deleted] »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #104
flir wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech's there. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and it will only get cheaper and more invasive. Only question we have any control over is... do we want everyone to have it, or only govs and corps? There's a second-amendment-like argument here, imo, that is very hard to push back on - because at least this stuff doesn't kill people. I want every cop to be surrounded by five or six recording devices that t…

Are you forgetting Google Glass? We put this genie back into the bottle once: we can do it again.

[deleted]

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#238

Post by gherkinnn »

RobotToaster wrote: post #29

I wish something like this existed that was completely offline. I'm face blind (prosopagnosia) so being able to feed an offline database photos of friends so it can recognise them would be great. Accessibility shouldn't require giving up privacy.

How do people around you react to your face blindness?

Do they consider not being remembered rude? Do you get incredulous reactions like people with aphantasia?

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#239

Post by jemmyw »

filup wrote: post #34

I can't think of one single practical use case for this that would benefit my life, because, right behind the glasses I have my very own locally available facial recognition built in.

I find it quite interesting the people on the thread mentioning face blindness or being bad at names and how it's embarrassing. I'm bad at names, really bad, but I've given up embarrassment about it. For one thing I can remember the names of some people and I've come to realize that being great at learning names is meaningless, I remember the names of people I really like... sorry others, we can't all click.

Secondly, put yourself in the opposite situation, do you really care if someone forgot your name? Does it even reflect how well you know someone? I had a friend at scouts when I was a kid and we were inseparable for a year. Never remembered his name. Didn't matter.

Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

#240

Post by soco »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #163
soco wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the OP neither have their problem, but I can't remember names. I know who the person in front of me is, we can talk pleasantly about everything - I have a good memory otherwise - but I can't remember their name to save my life. Luckily they very seldom notice that, if ever. And I won't tell, obviously.

I'm similar, and yes, there are easy options to replace person's name with, as long as you're putting a bit of thought into what you're saying so as not to paint yourself into a name corner. Ironically, I'm insanely good at remembering faces. But it's kinda useless because of the name thing (and equally, the face context is also difficult).

A trick helping momentarily is introducing them to another person. Then I pick up their name from the conversation and can use it myself - at least for 10 minutes until I forget it again.
Post reply on HN