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

Nearby Glasses

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 235 posts

Re: Nearby Glasses

#161

Post by jclulow »

iso1631 wrote: post #144
alkonaut wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a regulation issue to me. If it's regulated it can't be inevitable that "most people" are breaking the law. And if there is a resistance among people then hopefully it will be regulated (I'm talking outside the US now, i.e. where there is a positive correlation between what people in general want and what laws eventually become).

The regulation needs to get ahead of the product, otherwise you'd be criminalising existing behaviour and that doesn't work People normalised installing spy doorbells, so every doorstep is centrally available to large organisations who want to do harm (government, amazon, meta, whoever)

You can absolutely start regulating behaviour after the fact. Australia famously bought a bunch of guns back from people who had previously legally bought and owned them, and melted them down. There's no reason you couldn't offer people money in exchange for the surrender of their previously legally purchased surveillance racket goods. You can also frankly just regulate the central service/company out of existence in the case of, say, Ring.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#162

Post by riffraff »

thih9 wrote: post #155
mrbluecoat wrote: post #17

Add satellite imagery, nearby self-driving vehicles / Google maps cars, line-of-sight ring doorbells, peripheral street surveillance cameras, police equipment, people in your proximity with a smartphone camera, and various-purpose drones and then you'll have the perfect paranoia alerter.

The fact that people dislike so strongly only a subset of these recording devices also means something. Part of it is people being unaware. But also: wearers of smart glasses have a reputation. I guess the question is, is the glasshole reputation deserved.

I think it's mostly that smart glasses are at the intersection of "will push stuff to public internet" and "does it stealthily".

CCTV, self driving cars etc.. are (mostly) out of the first bucket, and phones are (mostly) out of the other bucket. Ring is a good contender and is also quite disliked.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#163

Post by iso1631 »

jclulow wrote: post #161
iso1631 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The regulation needs to get ahead of the product, otherwise you'd be criminalising existing behaviour and that doesn't work People normalised installing spy doorbells, so every doorstep is centrally available to large organisations who want to do harm (government, amazon, meta, whoever)

You can absolutely start regulating behaviour after the fact. Australia famously bought a bunch of guns back from people who had previously legally bought and owned them, and melted them down. There's no reason you couldn't offer people money in exchange for the surrender of their previously legally purchased surveillance racket goods. You can also frankly just regulate the central service/company out of existence in…

OK you can do a lot of things. It becomes far harder to implement it after it becomes normal

It's easier to ban ring from selling devices in 2010 when nobody had them, then to take them away from millions who feel their personal benefits of not having to get off the couch to see who's at the door outweighs the societal harm.

That's before the arguments about societal benefits (coperganda does well at this). You change the argument from a hypothetical "this could help stop crime" to a concrete example "in this case we found out who robbed little old granny thanks to our surveillance network".

Re: Nearby Glasses

#164

Post by ddtaylor »

xlii wrote: post #160
ddtaylor wrote: post #148

Tried this on my moto g 128GB - 2025 (XT2513V) running Android 16. Here is some rapid fire feedback. I opened this in a pretty heavily populated area in Baltimore. There wasn't anyone likely near using glasses and no detections were made, but the debug log flew by absurdly quickly likely because there are a ton of Bluetooth devices nearby. The start scanning button doesn't change to stop scanning, but it does seem to…

Maybe the app doesn't work, but at least no humans wrote it (:

I don't get it. It seems to be a great start to an interesting idea. I don't care if he wrote it using punch cards or a fever dream he induced by huffing paint, the source code is there

Re: Nearby Glasses

#165

Post by johannes1234321 »

Aside from the project itself: They are eusing a "Polyform License" I haven't encountered that before. So it's not "open source" as many people might expect from GitHub and Polyform licenses seem to inherit the "what exactly is the boundary between non-commercial and commercial" issue as do CC licenses.

https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses/blob/main/LI...

https://polyformproject.org/

Re: Nearby Glasses

#166

Post by rubyfan »

pyrale wrote: post #154
nomel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at this almost unanimously negative comment section, on a tech website, it appears you should be concerned about your safety while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative. > for identifying creeps nearby > I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. > Would renaming to ”Nearby Glassholes” be acceptable as a PR? > If you're…

> it appears you should be concerned about your safety while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". People don't have issues with smartphones, smartwatches, or any other "smart" stuff that isn't spyware. The issue isn't smarts, it's supporting stasi-as-a-service.

People are sensitive to video. Looks at the reaction from the Ring Super Bowl commercial and Nest Camera video retrieval news from a few weeks ago.

Your phone and watch are spyware mostly just spying on you. Sure they could be used to spy on others but the directness of an always on smart glass camera lens in one’s face is a little more jarring.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#167

Post by TiredOfLife »

rubyfan wrote: post #166
pyrale wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it appears you should be concerned about your safety while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". People don't have issues with smartphones, smartwatches, or any other "smart" stuff that isn't spyware. The issue isn't smarts, it's supporting stasi-as-a-service.

People are sensitive to video. Looks at the reaction from the Ring Super Bowl commercial and Nest Camera video retrieval news from a few weeks ago. Your phone and watch are spyware mostly just spying on you. Sure they could be used to spy on others but the directness of an always on smart glass camera lens in one’s face is a little more jarring.

That's why ICE wears masks and cops don't like being filmed.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#169

Post by Applejinx »

iso1631 wrote: post #163
jclulow wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can absolutely start regulating behaviour after the fact. Australia famously bought a bunch of guns back from people who had previously legally bought and owned them, and melted them down. There's no reason you couldn't offer people money in exchange for the surrender of their previously legally purchased surveillance racket goods. You can also frankly just regulate the central service/company out of existence in…

OK you can do a lot of things. It becomes far harder to implement it after it becomes normal It's easier to ban ring from selling devices in 2010 when nobody had them, then to take them away from millions who feel their personal benefits of not having to get off the couch to see who's at the door outweighs the societal harm. That's before the arguments about societal benefits (coperganda does well at this). You chang…

But their willingness to just make stuff up has escalated so far… I don't think copaganda has the effectiveness it once had. It's gotten burned through gratituous abuse.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#170

Post by magicalist »

saikia81 wrote: post #142
alkonaut wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a regulation issue to me. If it's regulated it can't be inevitable that "most people" are breaking the law. And if there is a resistance among people then hopefully it will be regulated (I'm talking outside the US now, i.e. where there is a positive correlation between what people in general want and what laws eventually become).

In the united states the first amendment of the constitution makes it so that any public usage of camera tech cannot be controlled by the state. Except in some very specific scenarios.

> In the united states the first amendment of the constitution makes it so that any public usage of camera tech cannot be controlled by the state

I'm repeating a comment of mine from another thread, but this is not true. Both recording the audio of a conversation that you aren't party to and deriving biometrics from video without consent are both broad categories that are regulated depending on the state you're doing the "public usage" in.

Post reply on HN