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

'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#161

Post by otterley »

dylan604 wrote: post #79
andybak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many buildings are copyrighted Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.

Nope, can't stop right there. It is the situation we live in now. You can release a product like a poster or puzzle or whatever and try to YOLO with your protest, but you will lose in court when you are sued by the rights holder. There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do wi…

> There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building

Which one is that?

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#162

Post by joemi »

vitorfblima wrote: post #136
gopalv wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it. The core problem of solitude is curiosity and sonder. When I smell fennel on a hike, I want to know what it is - yeah, this is dog fennel. When I see a strange symbol on a taxi car, I want to know why it is 3 arrows on bow and what that is. Seeing a strange dog and wondering what kind of dog that is (a whippet?). A glimpse of a black bird with red shoulder pa…

I'd say, if anything, this would make me less curious. The less you know, the better.

The "ignorance is bliss" approach doesn't work for everyone.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#163

Post by senordevnyc »

mrguyorama wrote: post #143
jayd16 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its cool. I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges. You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone. But still,…

People always say this like having an actual board of notes on the fridge hasn't been trivially possible for a century. It's like people obsessing over window managers. 99% of the time, the amount of windows you have showing is not the problem, you can't really focus on more than one at a time anyway. Consider as a demonstrative example, race car drivers. They have had options to have extremely detailed Heads Up Disp…

The information density on a fighter jet HUD has nothing to do with hanging a calendar on your wall.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#164

Post by jesse_dot_id »

codazoda wrote: post #142
jesse_dot_id wrote: post #119

I have a friend that works at Meta who was all the way convinced this tech was going to be ubiquitous well before they came out and I have always been like, "Yeah, until one hillbilly kills some guy for looking at his daughter with them on and it goes viral." It just seems like a no-brainer that these things will invite violence upon you once a critical mass of the population understands what they are, and thus peopl…

I wore these glasses for two years. I won't buy them again for reasons mentioned elsewhere. In that time nobody ever mentioned them. It's relatively difficult to pick these out in a crowd, unless they are actively recording (and even then it's hard to notice).

This is what I mean though. Some people know what they do, but it takes a lot of time for new technologies to weave their way into common knowledge. Once the majority of people know how to identify them, nobody is going to want to wear them anymore.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#165

Post by rtkwe »

bonoboTP wrote: post #156
rtkwe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more obvious, but since people use their phones all the time anyway, you really have to look at the angle they hold the phone to be sure. So it's not super hard to be sneaky about it even with a phone.

Most people are pretty obvious about it if you're looking. It's still the fact they could be doing it right in front of you without you knowing that really makes people hate the subtle-camera-on-face-products.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#166

Post by senordevnyc »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #105
ipaddr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law allows recording of people without consent or knowledge now. From flock cameras to door bell cameras to store cameras your pcture is taken hundreds of times daily. To just restrict glasses can be seen as a freedom of speech issue.

I'm guessing you're in the US; in the UK, door bell cameras are only legally allowed to film your own property.

Aren’t they generally facing out? How do you avoid capturing the street or neighbor’s house in the camera view?

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#167

Post by threethirtytwo »

dgellow wrote: post #40
threethirtytwo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does that have to do with freedom of speech? How is recording people without their consent or knowledge freedom of speech? That sounds absurd to me

freedom of press. It has to do with freedom of speech, because recording a speech is the counterpart to that. Should I be able to have the freedom to threaten someone with my speech but then have the ability to censor a recording of that?

Sounds absurd only because you don't understand.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#168

Post by JoeBOFH »

jimmydddd wrote: post #116
rtkwe wrote: post #34

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…

At my kid's daycare, they sent home an authorization form to allow them to use your kid in pics that might be posted to the internet. Some parents declined out of privacy concerns. Now I guess we are just blasting past all of that. Kind of like AI and copyright.

10 years ago we had the same form with my kid’s daycare. They kinda got pissy about it tho as they didn’t want to have to scrub photos they posted to their Facebook and insinuated that your kid may not have as much fun if they have to “separate” them when it comes to photo time.

We told em tough don’t use our kid’s photo. So even if institutions implement this kinda thing almost non want to do it.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#169

Post by fortyseven »

eldaisfish wrote: post #104
jayd16 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its cool. I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges. You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone. But still,…

but then you are not present, you are distracted by a computer. Just because that computer does not have a clunky monitor, doesn't mean that you aren't any less distracted. Some of the attitudes on this website, especially ones like yours, are the literal reason we are in this mess today. Please, please, if you have the power, push back on this nonsense from the inside. We need more people talking to other people lik…

Who are you to dictate what somebody enjoys? Don't worry about it. Do you.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#170

Post by JKCalhoun »

foco_tubi wrote: post #141
yoyohello13 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't wear them when I'm walking in the woods or hanging out at home. Having 'incoming car warning', or waypoint nav when I'm biking/running? That would be great!

Garmin has offered this for years. As a plus, the Varia taillight has a radar, so you don’t have to wear your pervert glasses on the back of your helmet to alert for incoming cars.

Yeah, what I was thinking—you don't need something strapped on your face to do these things.
Post reply on HN