251–260 of 311 posts
The number of times those get grabbed of someone’s face and stomped on will be greater than zero. And businesses will have signs for No guns/spyglasses.
Imagine that, this weekend. Brought to you by Meta Smart Glasses
Not sure if this is the future I want, but I've always thought the main idea of smart glasses is to automatically bring up information that is relevant in your current context. One part of this is to recognize who you are staring at.
Meta had taken its name from the virtual world "Metaverse" in Neal Stephenson 1992 novel Snow Crash . The novel is the earliest known use of that word, so if it wasn't directly then it was indirectly. The book also describes "Gargoyles": people using headsets with cameras and sensors to spy on everyone around them for the "Central Intelligence Corporation" while being also simultaneously in the Metaverse. Funny, how…
Creeper glasses.
Ideas for what individuals can do about this and related awful tech: 1. Ask your local and state governments to completely ban "stalkerware" and "Big Tech surveillanceware" (like will use this and other face recognition), as well as ban using hidden cameras (including in these glasses) to photograph/video people. 2. Tell everyone, before their buy the glasses, what a "glasshole" is. 3. Social negative feedback to peo…
I have the knowledge to compellingly argue, to legislators who do not have the knowledge, all these points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you could plausibly do this and only catch a property crime charge. If you're caught, forcefully removing worn objects from another person will almost certainly catch you a misdemeanor battery charge in most US jurisdictions. I'm no lawyer and things vary by location, but clothing is generally considered an extension of the person and usually touching their worn objects constitutes physical contact with…
If it’s a woman slapping them off a pervert and accidentally stepping on them, 100% walks no charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be socially normalized to eject people wearing these from your premises and/or life. I don’t care what convenience feature this possibly has, if you’re wearing a data miner you have no place near me. Fuck off.
Amish communities exist. You are free to join them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ( h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be socially normalized to eject people wearing these from your premises and/or life. I don’t care what convenience feature this possibly has, if you’re wearing a data miner you have no place near me. Fuck off.
I had an appliance delivered from Home Depot, and after it was installed, the person mentioned he had Meta glasses on. I didn't realize the whole time he was wearing them in my home, because I didn't know what they looked like. I felt uneasy.
Most companies I can give like, they make SOME good shit. Even Google. Not Meta, our entire civilization would be better off if we shoved all their bullshit into an ocean.
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.
Literally my thoughts. That would be so helpful, but I will not give any data-hungy company access to people around me. I recently heard the best way to explain faceblindness: Apples. Can you tell apples apart? Yes, sure, if you put two apples next to each other, they look similar, but there are differences. But could you recognize that specific apple among 50 similar ones? If an apple addressed you on the street, co…
I was in my late 20s when I realised I was "face-blind", but I should have realised a lot earlier, I remember reading in a book as a child about how "people can recognise a person by their face from a long distance, but find it difficult to recognise a voice", and I could not relate whatsoever to that passage.
I thought I regularly struggle to recognise someone until they start speaking, but it wasn't until a decade or two later that I read about prosopagnosia and then suddenly a lot of things made sense.
Your explanation is so much better than the rubbish illustrations of blanked or blurred faces, because it isn't like that at all, indeed sometimes I might rely on a detail about their face to recognise someone.
It's why face-blind isn't a great term either, because it's not a kind of blindness, I can see just as well as anyone, it just doesn't trip the automatic and instinctual recognition that I understand most people have.