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

Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

svd.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 870 posts

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#151

Post by flockonus »

palata wrote: post #124
twodave wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I overall agree with your point, but I don’t think “tracking leadership of a country that murders tens of thousands of its own citizens” is a strong supporting argument…

Because you think that "being able to track leadership of a country that knows that other countries may want to target them" does not mean "being able to track pretty much anyone"? Or do you think that those cameras are less secure because the leadership is not good with their people? I'm not sure I follow the criticism here.

Anyone who has a mobile phone has been tracked by their phone provider forever, with the accuracy of a couple blocks. Smartphones only bring more trackers to the equation in the form of apps.

What's the material concern to tracking that glasses add?

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#152

Post by yalogin »

Of course they can, why would one expect anything else? However if you look through their processes I am sure they are covered by some legal jargon to do the bare minimum in terms of security. They will have every knob available to debug to the lowest level possible and view everything

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#153

Post by raisedbyninjas »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #76
blakesterz wrote: post #29

Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…

Why is it always this accusatory “while you were distracted”-style rhetoric? Who has been distracted from Facebook’s shenanigans? Who are they talking about? Is it me? Because I can tell you I have certainly not been distracted on that front. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Am I supposed to hold somebody accountable who should’ve been paying attention? I do actually understand why it’s done, but I just find it very gra…

Well to an extent, it does work. Flood the zone.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#154

Post by function_seven »

ph4rsikal wrote: post #129
function_seven wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember those dorky Bluetooth earpieces? The ones only MBA nerds wore? They were uncool until the AirPods came along. The tail wags the dog. Wearing glasses may become inherently cool if all the cool people in your insta feeds are wearing them.

There is a UI difference between looking into a camera and talking to someone with headphones on.

The parent was talking about people choosing to wear these. Today there might be reluctance to wear them because they're creepy or uncool. But that mirrors the reluctance for cool kids to wear bluetooth earpieces back when they were those chunky Borg-looking things. Then they got shrunk down. They got "high quality, convenient, [and] light".

When these types of glasses are virtually indistinguishable from regular sunglasses, and a critical mass of cool people wear them all the time, the reluctance from the rest of us will melt away.

I hope I'm wrong. Really.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#155

Post by sillystuff »

Retric wrote: post #51
flir wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange to me that that's the line society seems to have drawn in the sand. Body cam, no problem. Doorbell cam, practically universal. Body cam worn on the face? No way. I wonder why.

Cop body cam footage is more likely to help you vs a cop than get you into trouble because a cop is already there watching what you’re doing. IE: Thank god the cop’s camera was off when I was buying crack, I might have gotten in trouble otherwise… fails because a cop was already watching you. Cops also announce their presence in uniforms and are operating as government agents. People already moderate their behavior a…

> body cameras had no statistically significant impact on officer use of force, civilian complaints, or arrests for disorderly conduct by officers. In other words, body cameras did not reduce police misconduct . . . 92.6 percent of prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions with body cameras have used that footage as evidence to prosecute civilians, while just 8.3 percent have used it to prosecute police officers[1]

Cops control when the cameras are filming, if footage is retained and what/when/if footage is released. Body cams are just yet another surveillance tool against the population.

[1]https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/will-body-cameras-help-end-poli...

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#156

Post by array_key_first »

webdevver wrote: post #55
nothrowaways wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have "NO meta glasses" rule at my workplace.

[flagged]

Is it that they're privacy obsessed, or rather that most people have a passion for self destruction and exhibition?

If you think about it, the "dork" position was the one that was most normal, it's the status-quo. The people wanting to record in lockerooms and what not is not the status-quo. They win because most people are short-sighted, or even secretly love hurting themselves.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#157

Post by http-teapot »

msy wrote: post #6

You would have to have been hiding under an extremely large rock not to assume this given the technology involved and Meta's overtly and consistently anti-privacy stances and history.

[inserts image of a smiling Mark Zuckerberg walking in the middle of unsuspecting attendees wearing VR headsets]

That image always felt dystopian to me

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#159

Post by bogwog »

algoth1 wrote: post #38
bogzz wrote: post #34

I am so far removed from the type of person who might consider buying something like that. You'd have to be exceptionally impervious to social cues to even think of wearing that in public. If you're blind, it's of course understandable but that's pretty much it in terms of cases in which I would consider the glasses acceptable to wear in public.

Yet, it’s a life saver for blind people

How so? I'd expect the opposite

> Hey Meta, is it safe to cross the street

> You are absolutely correct to check whether it's safe to cross before crossing! (emoji). Let me check for you(emoji)

> ...10% ...40% ...80% ...100% DONE. (made up progress bar)

> It is perfectly safe to cross right now! (emoji)

> Thanks Meta! (user dies)

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#160

Post by Forgeties79 »

lamontcg wrote: post #142
Forgeties79 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it always this accusatory “while you were distracted”-style rhetoric? Who has been distracted from Facebook’s shenanigans? Who are they talking about? Is it me? Because I can tell you I have certainly not been distracted on that front. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Am I supposed to hold somebody accountable who should’ve been paying attention? I do actually understand why it’s done, but I just find it very gra…

This is Meta claiming in their internal communications that they plan on doing it while people are distracted with other concerns. It isn't really "rhetoric", they're talking like they believe this actually happens, this is strategy. And I tend to agree with them that things like attention and political capital are ultimately finite resources. I've found that the "we can do two things" and "we can walk and chew bubbl…

Damn you’re right. I got so annoyed at the headline I didn’t even read the article so that’s on me
Post reply on HN