Thank you for sharing these insights. One of my main purchase factors was the facial recognition concerns. I now understand that this is very important and that they aren't disclosing everything. I cannot buy any of Meta's smart glasses and someone would likely break mine even if I did.
Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
261–270 of 311 posts
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#262When Google Glass first released back in 2012 I was running a conference technology startup, and since we had a database full of speaker and attendee profile photos the obvious thing we could build with Glass would be a "your glasses help you spot the people you are planning to meet in a crowded room" app. The Google Glass developer terms strictly forbid building that, and it didn't take more than a few seconds of de…
Yeah, but Meta is the stalker that planted the bushes outside your house so they can have a place to hide while they're fapping as they're getting more data from you so they can... I mean, they don't know what they want to do with the data, but they have it. They also said they like the way you smell.
And yet people with Google glasses were called the glassholes. What will we can people with Meta glasses?
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#263Start up idea: Ordinary glass (as in spectacles) frames that have a near IR LED on the bridge and on the side. PWM to be efficient, bright, but erratic clock of around 10Hz. Want a picture of me? Ask, or use film.
It will randomly turn the TV on/off and switch the channels as a funny bonus.
Cool idea nontheless
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tech's also been there to put cameras everywhere, and to wiretap every phone, etc. We put guardrails in place to control how that tech is deployed.
Man, I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not…
Not sarcastic, but I probably didn't convey the subtlety of what I was trying to say in a one line comment. I was objecting to the defeatist "oh the tech is there, so we can't do anything about it" attitude. I tried to choose the examples I chose that the tech being there definitely has some consequences and significant privacy implications, but some controls exist too (like, wiretaps are still applied very selectively, there's been a growing movement against Flock cameras and scaling back of their deployments in some places recently).
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#265Headline should be modded, these models aren't actively wired in anywhere. No idea why they'd be shipping these but the HN headline doesn't even match the blog headline.
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but Meta is the stalker that planted the bushes outside your house so they can have a place to hide while they're fapping as they're getting more data from you so they can... I mean, they don't know what they want to do with the data, but they have it. They also said they like the way you smell.
And yet people with Google glasses were called the glassholes. What will we can people with Meta glasses?
How about Dad! I use them to film my toddler doing cute things without having to pull out the phone constantly and being more present. It'd be nice if people didn't call me names for doing so :)
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It’s not inevitable if people choose to make it illegal. Illinois for one has strict laws around collecting bioinformatics.
Maybe I'm cynical, but it's already here.
Is this the Illinois law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_Information_Privacy_... Because the second sentence in that article is "Notably, the Act does not apply to government entities."
My whole point is that the tech is already on top of us, the only question that's still up in the air is who gets access to it.
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#268Not 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.
It worked well for the Terminator, so why shouldn't it work for us too? Being able to identify target/foe is of course how this will be used. However, I'd be much more inclined for the Black Mirror use of being able to block someone literally not just a number in your phone.
I have some vague recollection of a sketch where the user walks around and gets popups and ads in his glasses and later removes them to discover there is a calm city life around him. Was that Black Mirror?
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people are face blind 3.08%, according to https://hms.harvard.edu/news/how-common-face-blindness
so 250 million people? Thats a good amount of people.
That is a lot! Is it a spectrum? do some people recognize very close relatives but not acquaintances etc.?
Re: Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses
#270The company feels like the corporate embodiment of its founder.
Doesn't every company? Amazon is another example that immediately springs to mind.