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

171–180 of 235 posts

Re: Nearby Glasses

#171

Post by alkonaut »

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.

I don't mind anyone taking my photo in a public place. That was always legal. It's what's done with it that could be illegal. E.g. if they use my photo in a commercial without my consent? Illegal.

If it was also illegal to (for example) input a photo of someone non-consenting into any kind of AI model or post it to any other online service? Then I don't see much problem.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#172

Post by btbuildem »

yonatan8070 wrote: post #121
btbuildem wrote: post #41

Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

So if I run a Wi-Fi Monitor Mode pcap and Wireshark automatically renders MACs as the company they belong to, that's not legal now?

Precisely. Don't ask me why I looked into this, but the legislation is what it is.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#173

Post by alkonaut »

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)

It's inconvenient to make people criminals over night with new regulation, but it's by no means impossible to do so.

I can't install a Ring doorbell if it takes a picture of the street outside my house. That was preexisting regulation (about surveillance cameras requiring permits for public spaces). Of course, people who now install Ring doorbells DO often record the street. But that's more a matter of enforcing the law.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#174

Post by newyankee »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #101
newyankee wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was actually hoping it could be paired with speech to text very well and help along with hearing aids when the latter do not perfectly work. There are legitimate use cases.

Does that need a camera though?

Not an expert, but my suspicion is that the camera following lips can add an extra streaming data point making transcription accuracy much higher even at low volumes. Again a hunch and I guess the computational power and battery needs might still be insurmountable

Re: Nearby Glasses

#175

Post by bryanlarsen »

nomel wrote: post #76
bryanlarsen wrote: post #33

Currently detects via Meta, Essilor or Snap company ID. So it won't detect my XReal's. I purposefully bought my XReal now because it feels like they might be one of the last models released without cameras. But theoretically I could have the XReal Eye attachment on my glasses, and could be taking video through that. I don't, but the XReal user next to me might. Of course the USB wire hanging from my ear probably make…

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…

Given that I'm not interacting with people when I'm using these things I'm not at all worried about that. I probably meet maybe a dozen people per mile on my walks, for a few seconds apiece as we pass each other. It probably causes people to avoid me, but when I have them on I'm working or reading during my walk and am not interested in interaction either.

But if I was still commuting by public transit I would have liked to use them there.

It would be really annoying to avoid using my display glasses in a place highly suited for them just because of worries about creeping out people creeped out about a thing my glasses are incapable of doing.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#176

Post by Blackthorn »

itishappy wrote: post #102
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…

> I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative. Weird, I'd assume the opposite. The meme is "tech enthusiasts vs tech workers" implying there are people who like tech and people who understand it enough to distrust it. This tech-crowd is more aligned with the latter.

That used to be the case (see the joke about printers) but AI completely reversed it.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#178

Post by itishappy »

aa-jv wrote: post #147
itishappy wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't particularly care if you self host.

Alas, your knowledge or consent is not a requirement if you are in public, and this is a human right worth defending, frankly. Your desire to consent to being recorded in public places does not counteract my right to record everything I can perceive in public. Period.

That's fair. You have the legal right.

I'm still going to avoid you like the plague.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#179

Post by itishappy »

Blackthorn wrote: post #176
itishappy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative. Weird, I'd assume the opposite. The meme is "tech enthusiasts vs tech workers" implying there are people who like tech and people who understand it enough to distrust it. This tech-crowd is more aligned with the latter.

That used to be the case (see the joke about printers) but AI completely reversed it.

AI turned a lot of tech workers into tech enthusiasts (and frankly, most cool new technologies take their toll), but there are still plenty of people here who distrust AI.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#180

Post by itishappy »

com2kid wrote: post #122
nomel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ability to record without my knowledge or consent All major brands have a clear indicator for when they're recording. Someone could block that indicator out, but someone could also just go to Amazon.com and select one of hundred of available pinhole cameras or not-smart camera glasses. These aren't enabling an ability that hasn't been enabled for decades . If anything, seeing someone with main brand smart glass…

Not only that, but smart glasses have terrible recording time limits. A cheap $30 pinhole camera with a SD card will far surpass meta glasses in recording capabilities. Hidden cameras have been a thing for a long time now. Stick one in a pair of glasses and give it a super short battery life and people freak out...

It used to be if you were caught wearing a hidden camera in a department store the police would be called.

Now they're being billed as fashion accessories.

Sorry, but "normalize hidden cameras" isn't a movement I can get behind.

Post reply on HN