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

Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

hyperallergic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#111

Post by infinite_spin »

toofy wrote: post #8
infinite_spin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. So why the ad hominems? What is your best argument against these devices? When I go to a coffee shop I do so with the understanding that the establishment is likely recording me, are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in…

> … are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in public and/or commercial spaces? yes, please. i think that is exactly the direction we should be pushing. this creepy compulsion to record random people is weird af.

I would be satisfied with that, what bothers me is hypocrisy. If we want to do away with all of this behavior, then let's do so, but failing that then we're simply making up rules that some people have to follow, but others don't.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#112

Post by zombot »

paxys wrote: post #41

I don't understand why Meta is so insistent on making the camera and creepy video recording the primary feature of these glasses. They do have a ton of other uses. The speakers are genuinely great. It's useful to be able to hear notifications while walking. Having a decent AI for asking random questions is nice as well. It supports live translation. And unlike Airpods it doesn't tune out the rest of the world, which…

> I don't understand why

A self-definition as an intrusive peeping Tom is not easily overcome.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#114

Post by infinite_spin »

sapphicsnail wrote: post #24
infinite_spin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. So why the ad hominems? What is your best argument against these devices? When I go to a coffee shop I do so with the understanding that the establishment is likely recording me, are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in…

> Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. How? This is just going to give a bunch of creepy men an easier way to film me. I'm dreading these getting mainstream adoption.

I'll give a personal example. At a coffee shop I go to, someone repeatedly threatened to kill me. The owners would call the police, and they'd take a report, but without direct evidence the police claimed to have no power other than to trespass this individual. Which they did. Since that first time, he's threatened to kidnap, torture, and then murder me on several occasions. For my own safety, it would have been nice to have a video/audio of these events. As you might imagine, pulling out my phone and filming it seems like a dangerous option.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#115

Post by somenameforme »

drdaeman wrote: post #105
somenameforme wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. People simply stop behaving naturally when being casually recorded. It creates completely artificial scenarios. For instance if for some reason I had a friend pick up one of these glasses I certainly wouldn't allow him into my house with them on, even if he assured there was no recording, and I completely believed him. The mere presence of a such would just create a dampening effect on normal behavior. It'd be ak…

Thank you. I think (or hope) I see your point. I happen to were in exact scenario that you have mentioned, and I think I understand what you mean. Just as an anecdote - no, it doesn’t always work that way. At least it didn’t worked that way with me, because I held a different belief. It irked me for a moment - when I recognized a camera the association of topic-adjacent controversies sprung to mind. However, I dismis…

The big difference is one's eyes cannot be used to record and share events in perfect detail. What happens between people stays between people, or relies on low reliability recounting. This is of course without even hitting on what you mentioned - that this is all being beamed back to Meta who's going to try to monetize it in any way they can, and then likely further onto the NSA who's sole purpose in modern existence seems to be to try to create Precrime.

And in exchange we get... what? Somebody can record things slightly faster than the approximately 3 seconds it'd take you to do so on your phone?

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#116

Post by 0x000xca0xfe »

charcircuit wrote: post #28

The UK police monitoring your social media posts is more of a risk than Meta monitoring your social media posts to their platforms.

One _directly_ feeds into the other. Next step: The UK police monitoring all glasses livestreams.

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#117

Post by lesostep »

paul7986 wrote: post #44
gdulli wrote: post #4

It's hard to believe that in the late smartphone era there are people who think they're not online enough already, and want smart glasses so they can be even more online.

If you do one of the following now... - Wear sunglasses or glasses now - Take pics or videos with your phone Smart glasses are very handy and when traveling especially solo asking about what your seeing in front of you is handy/informative. I can see when AI becomes 100% reliable with smart glasses we all are almost know it alls. Everything and anything we need to know will be presented in front of us. Ok all the abo…

>> Take pics or videos with your phone

Positioning smartphone camera seems way easier then positioning your head for a good photo. What do you do when you want low perspective? Or an overhead view?

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#118

Post by lesostep »

gumby wrote: post #57

The real killer app form me requires a camera (though it doesn’t need to record photos or video for me to access — I have a phone for that). I need a device that tells me who I’m talking to if I’ve been introduced to them before and tell me how I know them (This is Bob Dobbs, you first met him in Texas in 1985 and he saved you at that party when you needed some Slack)”. Especially great when I meet someone out of con…

The bigger problem is that you essentially need to host somewhere a database with personal information of everyone you met, including their names, biometrics and private details. Nonconsensually. And it has to be accessible through the internet.

Honestly, just take notes and reread them sometimes, maybe?

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#119

Post by Nursie »

infinite_spin wrote: post #109
Nursie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy - covert recording of other people in public is not OK. This ridiculous idea that "it's in public so you have no expectation of privacy" is a semantic retcon, the pervasiveness of cameras is new and fundamentally changes your level of exposure in the public sphere. Overtly recording people in public is not really OK. Face-mounted, covert recording is another step too far and offensive to most people. If you genu…

> covert recording of other people in public is not OK This rules out the use of dash cams then.. but I'm sure you realize the public benefit those offer, so I'm reluctant to accept this argument.

I think it can be a general rule without being a concrete one, and is heavily context dependent.

I agree that dash cams are for the most part OK, because for the most part they're recording for safety reasons and evidence in case of accidents. But sitting in a coffee shop as a private citizen, recording everyone that comes in without any particular justification would not really be OK, covertly or overtly. Even though the owner might be doing the same thing for security.

So perhaps "covert recording of other people in public without an accepted, socially justifiable reason, is not OK"

Re: Guerrilla London bus ads mock Kylie Jenner’s Meta glasses campaign

#120

Post by ButlerianJihad »

Nursie wrote: post #37
sublinear wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very confused by this take. It's been over 20 years since then and it's still just as awkward to take a call in public. People will instinctively prefer a quiet place away from the crowd. Otherwise others may eavesdrop, think you're talking to them, or are crazy. You'll find that most of those people with airpods are listening to something, not talking on a call. The most popular "smart glasses" that I see everyw…

> think you're talking to them Yeah that's still weird. Last time it happened to me was in the City of London near Liverpool St (ironic as we're talking about banking phonecalls). Out of nowhere a guy walking towards me starts speaking, for all the world like he's trying to talk to me, so I stopped and said "Hey, can I help you?" Nope, strides on past, then I noticed the airpods.

> City of London

Thanks to binge-watching CGP Grey's channel this week, I know exactly what you're referring to, and why you wrote it fully-specified like that!

Post reply on HN