151–160 of 280 posts
This whole thing has felt very odd. Did we collectively forget about the Google Glass and glass-holes? This was entirely predictable. I guess the only difference this time around is how inconspicuous they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, I don’t think this reaction is irrational at all. I’m curious though why you do.
This kind of discrete recording capability already is so widespread and accessible. Amazon is full of these kinds of devices, tiny "AI" audio recorders, pens with hidden cameras etc. They don't even require much technical competency. People also walk around with their phones out so often. There's no way for you to know that they aren't recording. E.g. someone could easily be pretending to use their phone when climbin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need a phone either and sorry but the idea of someone using a device to learn things about me that I did not share with them is frankly disgusting and dehumanizing. You can simply talk to people, we don't have to enable your perversions because you refuse to interact with humans.
You mean like if they google you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct the issue isn't Meta people just don't like the idea they could be being recorded at any time to get blasted out to the whole world. Yes, in theory you're always open to being recorded in public but the glasses make it far more subtle /and/ up close so more normal interactions become subject to the intrusion in a way that would normally be quite obvious. It's basically the same backlash that hit Google Glass…
Phones already make people much more reserved and less "wild" eg at parties compared to pre-phone-cameras (that are always online and can upload to social media effortlessly).
Our idea of a public/private privacy division where private recording is discouraged and public is a free for all really feels dated. I know personally I'd love to see a private/local/wide distribution division or something like that where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net. There are real harms to being a public figure and the net rarely understa…
There's a lot of copyright and other rights management that can be applied. Many buildings are copyrighted. If you take a picture of a building, which you are free to do, you cannot make money from that image just because you took it while being in the open public. The same should be applicable to people as well. Yes, you took a picture of them while in public, but they people still own the rights to the likeness. If…
In which country? Certainly not the USA. There are very few countries in which this is true, such as France and Italy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phones already make people much more reserved and less "wild" eg at parties compared to pre-phone-cameras (that are always online and can upload to social media effortlessly).
It's true but phones are much more obvious that you have them out and probably filming where the glasses aren't so can be more controlled and at least reacted to. The glasses create more uncertainty about if the person is filming.
Tech is so frustrating in real life. I feel like we have all the cool sci fi stuff I always wanted, but everything comes with a monkey's paw style gotcha. The idea of meta glasses is so awesome, I want a heads up display to show me whatever I want. But there is no way in hell I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted.
Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women. This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from h…
That's not how the law works in the U.S. or most of Europe. A recording of the defendant threatening to kill the victim is admissible as evidence, especially if the victim winds up dead shortly thereafter. For example, see https://www.thebulldog.law/california-penal-code-633-5-the-v...
What comes to mind are those orange tip laws mandating that airsoft guns must be manufactured with an orange tip to differentiate them visually from real firearms. In this case, maybe there could be some mandated standardized high-viz indicator that there is a camera lens being pointed at you in wearable devices. I could see maybe allowing the high-viz element to be concealed if the mechanism concealing it also block…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"
I think maybe I in-artfully wrote it - I mean: there are situations when wearing smart glasses should be labelled 'pervert glasses'. Not that there are situations that require wearing of the glasses
I worry that these will become so discreet that people will be suspicious of anyone wearing any glasses at all, even dumb ones, in a locker room or bathroom.