131–140 of 463 posts
One of the bigger commercial niches for smart glasses is filming POV porn, so it is hardly surprising that sort of content ended up in the moderation queue. The project should have planned to account for that use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>I don't think that's fair. Smartglasses have legitimate purposes. I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.…
For parents smart glasses are awesome, no need to pull out a phone to take a picture. No need to view the world through a phone screen.
They are also useful as being regular BT headphones as well. Podcasts while walking w/o tiny earbuds to lose.
Meta said the contracting "did not meet (meta's) standards". I am sure that is true. meta's "standard" is not to reveal the illegal, immoral, unethical things meta does. No matter what the harm. Maybe a company with those standards should not get our business. Oops, no wait, maybe they mean the Friedman Doctrine standards? In that case they are entitled to do any and every thing to make a profit. No matter what the h…
There was an example in the article where a user’s glasses kept recording the user’s wife after he took them off. That’s bad but on the user, not Facebook.
Seems similar to a situation where someone takes nudes of someone without their consent and then sends them off to a lab to be printed. The lab isn’t doing anything illegal or unethical printing them when they ask the user “are these legal” and the user replies “yes.” Unless you want to stop photo printers from ever printing nudes, I think the responsibility is on the user, not the firm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't think that's fair. Smartglasses have legitimate purposes. I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.…
> Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case You then list a mere two categories. Would your argument have been similar in 2008 if told that in ten years, everyone in the economic first world would be carrying multiple cameras including a dedicated "selfie" camera at all times?
None of the cameras you're mentioning are pointed at people all the time.
When you are wearing Meta glasses, they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't think that's fair. Smartglasses have legitimate purposes. I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.…
> Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case You then list a mere two categories. Would your argument have been similar in 2008 if told that in ten years, everyone in the economic first world would be carrying multiple cameras including a dedicated "selfie" camera at all times?
> "We see everything - from living rooms to naked bodies ," one worker reportedly said. > Meta said this was for the purpose of improving the customer experience, and was a common practice among other companies. Am I reading this correctly?! This is probably the weirdest statement I've read on the internet in twenty years.
How is this weird? People have been trading away their privacy for the smallest possible gains in convenience for a long time.
edit 2: OK, I see what you mean. But I'm wondering if it should be possible to consent to this via T&C. Basically the same issue as with many online services, turned up to 11, sure. And it involves OTHER people, who have not consented.
Stuff like this used to be outrage fuel even when it was more of a social experiment, e.g. the documentary "We live in public" or the "Big brother" TV show. By now, I'm sure there have been millions of influencers doing similar things, but it's very much not considered normal?
Streaming to an unknown number of employees might be considered different from streaming to the public, sure.
But the core question here is whether there's informed consent, and, IMO also, if it should be possible to consent to this when the other party is a company like Meta and the pretext is not deliberately seeking attention (like influencers and streamers do).
edit, clarified social media comparison
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is not up to you to deprive anyone their right to use them. Why is it a right? >Are you going to go after car cameras next? No. A car cannot follow me into a building very easily. It cannot turn as quickly as a human head. >Any American who has any opposition to public recording is violating the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American. lmao
I have no idea why you are downvoted. I do not want my employees recording their day job and selling it, or the creepy dude next to me in the bathroom filming my goods or the log jam flying out of my butt so meta can try to sell me pepto. I also don't want that one time I did something minor illegal like jay walking get auto fed into palantir so they can ship me to the latest internment camp. Or someone stealing my b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also make sure to avoid people with smartphones and places with video surveilence.
Is this an honest argument? Surely you can think of how glasses might be ... in a different league than the two items you mention?
Security cameras afaik usually don't record audio, but all phones can. And they don't even need to be pointed in any specific direction.
Meta cancels the contract with the outsourcing company they contracted to classify smart glasses content after employees at the company whistleblow about serious privacy issues with the content they were paid to classify.
"Fun" bonus fact: This isn't the first time Sama (the outsourcing company) has had these problems. OpenAI had them classify CSAM, so Sama fired them as a client back in 2022. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/ We're 4 years on, 3 years since that report broke. Not a single thing has improved about how tech companies operate.
It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).