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

Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#121

Post by mLuby »

pronlover723 wrote: post #84

I know this will get DVed but this seems like one of those things we'll look back on in 20yrs and "mostly" wonder what all the fuss was about. AR cameras seem inevitable. They're strange today but ask any 2006 non-techie if they'd consider carrying a pocket computer and they'd laugh at you. Now they all have one and you'd likely only get them to part with it from their cold dead fingers. The privacy issues are a huge…

This is exactly the plot of The Circle (the book—I haven't seen the movie).

> Rape, Muggings, theft, seem like they'd all go down in a world where AR cameras are as ubiquitous as smartphones.

A simple mask stops the second two. And it'll take a generation at least until wearing camera sunglasses indoors leads to sex/rape.

> How do backroom deals, government conspiracies, corporate malfeasance stay private when everyone in the room is recording it?

The powerful will be the last people this affects. Thus, privacy will be seen as a mark of status.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#122

Post by reaperducer »

rvense wrote: post #19
foobaby wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with these is that they're essentially masquerading as normal sunglasses. I don't think most people in public will even notice that these aren't normal Ray Bans. Google Glass wasn't effective in part due to the fact that they were obvious to those around the wearer. That's not the case with these, which is frankly terrifying.

It's hard for me to articulate how this makes me feel. As someone who values anonymity and, for no particular reason, would prefer not to be photographed and have my movements tracked, I feel like I am being forced from public spaces. Regulated CCTV coverage of certain areas is one thing. This is untracked, unlimited surveillance by a private company whose goals and motives are completely removed from any semblance o…

As someone who values anonymity and, for no particular reason, would prefer not to be photographed and have my movements tracked

It's sad that you are made to feel like you have to disclaim that you have no particular reason for wanting privacy. Privacy should be the default, not something we have to explain to the defenders of megacorps.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#123

Post by sbassi »

copperx wrote: post #35
ramphastidae wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If someone I was with was wearing these, the conversation would end immediately.

It is a good thing that these glasses are tinted, otherwise, people would wear them indoors, in private spaces.

there are not tinted models, with only blue light filter, or with prescription glasses. https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/electronics/RW4003%20UNISEX%20ra...

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#124

Post by sbassi »

bennysomething wrote: post #83

I don't even understand how this got past the first whiteboard meeting "yeah right you want this to perv at the beach, park etc". It's just a creepy hidden camera.

there are hundreds of hidden cameras on glasses, Teddy bears, hats, pens, and so on, just to to Alibaba and other Chinese vendors.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#125

Post by selfhoster11 »

pronlover723 wrote: post #84

I know this will get DVed but this seems like one of those things we'll look back on in 20yrs and "mostly" wonder what all the fuss was about. AR cameras seem inevitable. They're strange today but ask any 2006 non-techie if they'd consider carrying a pocket computer and they'd laugh at you. Now they all have one and you'd likely only get them to part with it from their cold dead fingers. The privacy issues are a huge…

> Better to just accept that it's coming and figure out how best to deal with it. I don't believe laws telling people they can't have it or use it will work.

Two things:

1. I will never accept this. Hell no. And under no circumstances will I give in to let them do their thing just because it's easier.

2. Laws telling people they can't use/have it will work. That's why we have laws, to coordinate certain behaviours when people refuse to act respectfully. Mask mandates and GDPR have been some very recent examples that had a drastic impact on how things are done, providing these laws are actually enforced. If they aren't enforced, that's a problem with your enforcement and not the laws.

And yes, to echo the sentiments of others in this thread: if everyday life becomes saturated with these invasive devices, I will be the one person asking them to switch them off during s conversation. Or run to the hills.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#126

Post by vangelis »

pronlover723 wrote: post #84

I know this will get DVed but this seems like one of those things we'll look back on in 20yrs and "mostly" wonder what all the fuss was about. AR cameras seem inevitable. They're strange today but ask any 2006 non-techie if they'd consider carrying a pocket computer and they'd laugh at you. Now they all have one and you'd likely only get them to part with it from their cold dead fingers. The privacy issues are a huge…

Sounds terrible. I'd love to see someone following Facebook employees around Surveillance Camera Man style, at the grocery store and as they eat dinner outside. I'm sure they wouldn't react poorly.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#127

Post by vangelis »

concordDance wrote: post #65

Why are people up in arms about this? Imagine a transhuman future where we all have superhuman memory and have integrated mind machine interfaces, able to perfectly transfer information between ourselves. Would you insist that people's memories be degraded to be close to the average memory quality? Or would you prevent them from transferring the information via things like degrading their perfect drawing skills? (Or…

Hopefully, personal IR laser countermeasures.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#128

Post by selfhoster11 »

concordDance wrote: post #65

Why are people up in arms about this? Imagine a transhuman future where we all have superhuman memory and have integrated mind machine interfaces, able to perfectly transfer information between ourselves. Would you insist that people's memories be degraded to be close to the average memory quality? Or would you prevent them from transferring the information via things like degrading their perfect drawing skills? (Or…

That future is still far off. It's not a stretch to imagine that by then, humanity has made stable colonies on different planets so we can get away from greedy business leaders like Mark and live in enclaves that actually reflect our values to a much larger extent than the current world allows for.

If, for example, I were to live in a colony that postulated that any augmentation that could be used as surveillance must be running on fully open hardware and software, and that there are legal (but not technical) restrictions around selling this data for commercial gain, I'd sign up happily. Make that instead a Facebook enclave, and I'd be catching the first ship off the planet.

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#129

Post by pronlover723 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #86
pronlover723 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just reported to my friends that bobthepanda posted a message on hacker news. I didn't ask for your consent to tell them. I also told my sister about a conversation I had with a friend. I didn't ask the friend's permission to share.

but that doesn't scale, and isn't super high fidelity anyways (eyewitness recall is notoriously bad). Just because something is possible, doesn't mean we should make more extreme versions of it possible.

It does scale. People have been writing what other people do in books and newspapers for centuries and spreading the info to millions of people

I see it as what right do you have to prevent me from sharing my experiences and memories and what right do you have do prevent me from augmenting that memory?

Taken to an extreme your POV seems like it would ban paper. Why I am allowed to take notes about what someone is saying other than in my brain? We should ban paper! Oh, I replaced paper with a computer. Oh, I used a computer to do speech recognition and record the notes. Oh, I videod the speech. What if I augment my brain. People have long been working on making chips to help people with brain damage. What if they get to the point those chips have flawless memory?

I get those are hypotheticals, but they help to think about what's the underlying principles. Today I can walk down the street and live stream everything I see so it's not like we aren't there already at some degree.

I also saw some people brought up they're in a "consent" state. I don't know of any consent states that prevent videotaping without consent. If they did, all security cameras would be illegal. I do know at least one state prevents audio recording without consent. I suspect that won't last. For one because everyone will have a video camera + mic so at some point the state will catch up to how people behave rather than try to stop them. For 2 because given enough processing and framerate I suspect you can extract audio from video (). For 3 you could use lip readers (or trained AI) to extract conversation from video.

() https://news.mit.edu/2014/algorithm-recovers-speech-from-vib...

Re: Ireland raises privacy question over Facebook smart glasses

#130

Post by [deleted] »

pronlover723 wrote: post #84

I know this will get DVed but this seems like one of those things we'll look back on in 20yrs and "mostly" wonder what all the fuss was about. AR cameras seem inevitable. They're strange today but ask any 2006 non-techie if they'd consider carrying a pocket computer and they'd laugh at you. Now they all have one and you'd likely only get them to part with it from their cold dead fingers. The privacy issues are a huge…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN