Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your proposed solution is in itself a privacy nightmare. Imagine Apple having to know your entire network of non-apple users just to not mess up your videos with friends.
Apple already knows those in your network and has for years. If you have an iPhone open the camera app and look under "People & Pets."
Nearby Glasses
111–120 of 235 posts
Re: Nearby Glasses
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love smart glasses they are very useful for people who wear sunglasses and use their phone to take pics & videos. Of course with all new technology people fight against it. When I wore them on rollercoasters at Cedar Point in 2024 ride attendees said take those off and store them in a locker at the front entrance of the park (that kid / ride attendant hated them). Yet as Feb 2026 Six flags now allows smart glasses…
> Of course with all new technology people fight against it. People have been fighting against smart glasses since 2012. Apple may end up with a feature to post-edit others out, and versions down the road from that one they may have a feature where you can register faces for a current session and then it auto-blurs others. Making its own assumptions about in-network or not and who should be blurred would be a bad use…
Re: Nearby Glasses
#113So the bodycam that I have because of threats to my person is okay and somehow different?
Re: Nearby Glasses
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple already knows those in your network and has for years. If you have an iPhone open the camera app and look under "People & Pets."
You have to specifically identify and name the people in the photos, otherwise all it knows is that it's a person and throws it into that folder. And if you don't use icloud none of it leaves your device. It does the photo processing locally on the phone. It only knows what you tell it. https://support.apple.com/en-ca/108795 https://applemagazine.com/find-people-and-pets-in-photos/
Re: Nearby Glasses
#115https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-g... > Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned. I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.
> I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future. I don't know what Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future is but I believe it's basically inevitable that most people will be wearing always on cameras on their face in the future. The same way they carry always on phones today. The use cases will be too compelling. There have already been demos. Ask the AI watching over your shoulder anything about your…
There's a very significant chunk of people who rarely if ever use the camera on their phone right now. It's not even a matter of who they are or their personal opinions. Cameras simply aren't an exclusive gateway to anything critically important. In many cases a photo or video is an objectively worse format than text.
Smartphones became common because they are now the only way to access certain information or authenticate. It's to the extent that we eliminated hard copy documents and changed publishing and proving identity irreversibly. People frequently use smartphones because they have to, and a smartphone without a working camera is still perfectly usable and always will be.
This isn't a matter of the public being wooed by a sales pitch or wanting anything in particular. Images require less accessible and reliable methods of interpretation to convey information whereas text is the information. If you're not convinced then consider that both can be generated by AI. A generated image can be convincing and so can generated text, yet we depend on special forms of text such as keys which cannot be generated by AI and any image trying to encode the same is always inferior. An image is never acceptable as a sole or even primary means of authentication. For all these reasons and more, an image is never the only format available.
Re: Nearby Glasses
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at this almost unanimously negative comment section, on a tech website, it appears you should be concerned about your safety while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative. > for identifying creeps nearby > I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. > Would renaming to ”Nearby Glassholes” be acceptable as a PR? > If you're…
> I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative. Weird, I'd assume the opposite. The meme is "tech enthusiasts vs tech workers" implying there are people who like tech and people who understand it enough to distrust it. This tech-crowd is more aligned with the latter.
Re: Nearby Glasses
#117https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-g... > Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned. I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.
Re: Nearby Glasses
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the problem is not smart glasses per se , but spyware that runs on a lot (if not most) of such devices. Shame the language makes people intrinsically hate the former by associating it with the latter without even questioning it. The idea of smart glasses is cool, the implementations are not.
Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't particularly care if you self host.
All major brands have a clear indicator for when they're recording.
Someone could block that indicator out, but someone could also just go to Amazon.com and select one of hundred of available pinhole cameras or not-smart camera glasses.
These aren't enabling an ability that hasn't been enabled for decades. If anything, seeing someone with main brand smart glasses makes it more obvious.
Re: Nearby Glasses
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't particularly care if you self host.
> The ability to record without my knowledge or consent All major brands have a clear indicator for when they're recording. Someone could block that indicator out, but someone could also just go to Amazon.com and select one of hundred of available pinhole cameras or not-smart camera glasses. These aren't enabling an ability that hasn't been enabled for decades . If anything, seeing someone with main brand smart glass…
To their credit, smart glasses are an obvious signal for me to avoid. That doesn't make me appreciate them any more.
Re: Nearby Glasses
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future. I don't know what Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future is but I believe it's basically inevitable that most people will be wearing always on cameras on their face in the future. The same way they carry always on phones today. The use cases will be too compelling. There have already been demos. Ask the AI watching over your shoulder anything about your…
That's way off base. There's a very significant chunk of people who rarely if ever use the camera on their phone right now. It's not even a matter of who they are or their personal opinions. Cameras simply aren't an exclusive gateway to anything critically important. In many cases a photo or video is an objectively worse format than text. Smartphones became common because they are now the only way to access certain i…