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

Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 463 posts

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#151

Post by 2ndorderthought »

ryandrake wrote: post #107
redbell wrote: post #48

> "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.

> > 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. It's total fantasy. I've worked in big tech. Casually uploading and providing company/contractor access to non-redacted intimate photos or pictures of the insides of people's home…

Well you gotta give out black mail material to the scam centers somehow. Otherwise they don't actually have leverage! Oh right... We don't want that happening.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#152

Post by burnte »

talkingtab wrote: post #18

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…

Yeah, why the hell is Meta wa5tching people's videos either? Why PAY a company to invade our privacy and watch our videos? It's flipping BIZARRE.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#153

Post by hosteur »

swiftcoder wrote: post #85

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.

Why is there even a “ moderation queue”? Isn’t this people’s private recordings?

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#154

Post by jaidhyani »

talkingtab wrote: post #18

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…

I used to work for Meta. I quit largely because of intense frustrations with the company. Meta has made a lot of mistakes, overlooked a lot of harms, and made a lot of short-sighted, selfish choices. Many things about the world are worse than they could be because of choices Meta has made.

So that when I say that they really do have a zero tolerance policy for anyone using their internal systems to violate user privacy, it's not because I'm eager to defend them. It's just true (at least, it was when I was there). There are internal systems dedicated to making sure you have access to what you need to do your job, and absolutely nothing else. All content you interact with through internal tools is monitored and logged. If you get caught trying to use whatever access your job gives you for anything other than doing your job, security immediately escorts you out of the building. This is drilled into new hires early and often. For everything Meta gets wrong, they really do take this seriously.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#155

Post by [deleted] »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #73
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #9

Not sure which is worse here - that Meta are recording video from customers' smart glasses, or that they are firing people who talk about it.

Can I squeeze in the just a teeny tiny bit of… why the hell are you wearing an internet camera on you while naked and/or having sex? … although I really extend that to why are you wearing an internet connected camera that is obviously going to be monitored by Meta.

[deleted]

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#156

Post by msh »

prepend wrote: post #133
talkingtab wrote: post #18

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…

Is it illegal or immoral? Having Meta review this material has to be approved by users and has their consent. 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 doin…

Is there explicit approval? Or is it buried in the legal agreements?

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#157

Post by stingraycharles »

talkingtab wrote: post #18

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…

Unfortunately in today’s world where organizations are larger than many a country’s GDP, they really only have to face responsibility towards shareholders and maximizing profits is the thing they usually care about.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#159

Post by recursive »

NBJack wrote: post #113
db48x wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not meaningfully. Anyone holding a smartphone might be recording you. You’d better avoid them if you don’t want to be recorded.

Most people don't run around holding out their smartphone directly in front of them. It has to be pointed at the subject, and tends to be obvious. Smart glasses, however, are always aimed at whatever the wearer is looking at. They may or may not be recording (note the reports of people hiding the LED indicators), and at a fair distance could easily be mistaken for a normal pair. The general populace is much more like…

I've seen people keep their phone in their shirt pocket. The only reason it tends to be obvious is that most people aren't trying to be covert. Those aren't the ones you should be worried about.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#160

Post by deepsquirrelnet »

talkingtab wrote: post #18

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…

> At the time of the publication, Meta admitted subcontracted workers might sometimes review content filmed on its smart glasses when people shared it with Meta AI.

They just got fired for "piercing the veil". They committed the sin of bringing attention to the invasion of privacy.

Post reply on HN