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

'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 280 posts

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#101

Post by Ajedi32 »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #56
aqme28 wrote: post #18

I was trying to brainstorm ways to make these palatable to general society. Because I think this kind of thing is going to happen, but a lot of people (myself included) have a legitimate problem with surreptitious recordings. It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker. Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the c…

I think they tried that, and people hacked around it: https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...

If you want to secretly record someone in public, aren't there already plenty of much subtler ways? Pinhole camera in your shirt pocket, normal glasses with a hidden camera, camera integrated into a hat, etc? "Disable the recording light in your smart glasses" would just be one more entry in that list.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#102

Post by rimbo789 »

baxtr wrote: post #68

> Gaby Luisa was standing outside a dance club in Arizona earlier this summer when a man wearing glasses threw out a pickup line. “Did I just run into my future wife?” he asked. She politely let him know she wasn’t interested and moved on with her evening. She was shocked to find out later that their interaction was recorded and posted on YouTube without her knowledge or permission, using smart glasses which, she sai…

Both wild but also very obviously was going to happen with a product like this.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#103

Post by bluefirebrand »

adolph wrote: post #94
fusslo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses…

What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"

Wearing them in a locker room or at a pool party or at the beach or really anywhere you might be likely to catch a recording of someone in a state of undress that they wouldn't want you to have a recording of?

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#104

Post by eldaisfish »

jayd16 wrote: post #45
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.

Because its cool. I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges. You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone. But still,…

but then you are not present, you are distracted by a computer. Just because that computer does not have a clunky monitor, doesn't mean that you aren't any less distracted.

Some of the attitudes on this website, especially ones like yours, are the literal reason we are in this mess today.

Please, please, if you have the power, push back on this nonsense from the inside. We need more people talking to other people like real humans, not like notes in a digital diary.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#105

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

ipaddr wrote: post #93
dgellow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with freedom of speech? How is recording people without their consent or knowledge freedom of speech? That sounds absurd to me

The law allows recording of people without consent or knowledge now. From flock cameras to door bell cameras to store cameras your pcture is taken hundreds of times daily. To just restrict glasses can be seen as a freedom of speech issue.

I'm guessing you're in the US; in the UK, door bell cameras are only legally allowed to film your own property.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#106

Post by fusslo »

adolph wrote: post #94
fusslo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses…

What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"

I think maybe I in-artfully wrote it - I mean: there are situations when wearing smart glasses should be labelled 'pervert glasses'. Not that there are situations that require wearing of the glasses

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#107

Post by ipaddr »

abirch wrote: post #74
hn_submit wrote: post #58

Why is Meta insisting on forcing these "pervert" glasses on us? I can tell you why: advertising. I bet some "pervert" within Meta (may Zuck himself) has already thought up that whatever you look at will result in you getting an ad for that item. "I see you're looking at a car. How about this new Toyota RAV4?" "I see you're looking at a mobile phone. How about this new Samsung Galaxy Fold which is on sale." "I see you…

If someone signs in and gives up their privacy, I don't care. Where I do care is when someone with their pervert glasses captures an image of me at my kid's little league game and now I'm getting ads based on that.

A little league game has hundreds of people taking pictures and video. Unless your child plays naked there is nothing you can do to stop them. If you really want to stop anyone from seeing your child in public you would need a Burka or don't allow them to be in public.

I think you are fighting a losing battle if you choose to allow your kids to enter society.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#108

Post by rimbo789 »

daheza wrote: post #12
peter_d_sherman wrote: post #9

>"Some people are using the glasses — which look like a pair of regular spectacles — to record people without their knowledge and publish the videos on social media. The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could be covertly recorded at the gym..." Observation: The same technology could be used to record business deals, job in…

I wonder if there should be a provision in the ISO 27001 about not allowing these smart glasses into the workplace

If there isn't currently there will be very soon.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#109

Post by joseda-hg »

aqme28 wrote: post #18

I was trying to brainstorm ways to make these palatable to general society. Because I think this kind of thing is going to happen, but a lot of people (myself included) have a legitimate problem with surreptitious recordings. It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker. Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the c…

Then you can filter only the visible part of the signal, plus if they become common you risk interference, contamination or long term exposure (Your face regularly points to other people faces/eyes)

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#110

Post by simonw »

hn_submit wrote: post #58

Why is Meta insisting on forcing these "pervert" glasses on us? I can tell you why: advertising. I bet some "pervert" within Meta (may Zuck himself) has already thought up that whatever you look at will result in you getting an ad for that item. "I see you're looking at a car. How about this new Toyota RAV4?" "I see you're looking at a mobile phone. How about this new Samsung Galaxy Fold which is on sale." "I see you…

It's platform anxiety. Meta are still frustrated that they missed out on controlling the mobile platform and have to pay those 30% fees to Google and Apple.

The metaverse was the same thing: they are willing to spend an inordinate amount of money on the chance that something new - in this case face-computers - will be the next big platform.

Post reply on HN