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

201–210 of 280 posts

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

#201

Post by asdff »

bigzyg33k wrote: post #158
zlarin wrote: post #149

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…

They already have a bright light that when covered, disables the camera

They invented an LED light that can detect when it has been covered with sharpie? That is more interesting tech to me than the rest of the hardware stack.

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

#202

Post by kstrauser »

jexe wrote: post #150
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.

As a parent of a new kid, being present is exactly why I wanted a pair - I didn't want to spend time looking at them through a screen, but still wanted to keepsake some precious early moments. (didn't work out that way in practice, but that was the idea)

As a parent of older kids: I never remember the context of the old photos. "Yep, there's my kid laying on the rug." I do, however, remember them letting go of the coffee table and wobbling their way toward me for the first time.

Mindfulness >>> recordings, any day of the week. Be there with your kid and don't worry about capturing every precious moment. You're never going to have enough time to curate them anyway. Even if you did, the time spent curating is time you could've just been hanging out with your kid instead.

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

#203

Post by jayd16 »

watwut wrote: post #184
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,…

> 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. Honestly, they sound all useless. Like, junk gandgets you get because someone needed to give you a christmas gift, then you use them for like 2 weeks as toys and then they…

Sure, a lot of these are super niche. But each one of these costs nothing. Gadgets become software.

Its the final gadget.

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

#204

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

senordevnyc wrote: post #166
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I assume you can adjust the angles so that they only cover your property.

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

#205

Post by rtkwe »

specproc wrote: post #195
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…

I'm really happy to see this turning out the same way as Glass. It's rare we get serious wins over big tech. It's tough to think of something else that's been so roundly societally rejected, not so much as a bad product, but as something that's loathed so much it has no future.

I wish there was a way to do it without all the problems of having cameras on people's faces. The tech of AR glasses would be pretty neat to get working given I was raised on Sci-fi with visual overlays on people's vision being a pretty common piece of tech. You'd have to trust they couldn't get jailbroken to add recording though even if a company with enough trust made a set with cameras only able to be used by the inside out tracking system.

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

#206

Post by throwaway_7274 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #174
throwaway_7274 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s so interesting to me that there are still so many people who see the monkey’s-paw thing as somehow secondary or incidental, even those who acknowledge that it’s often there! I don’t really understand why this is, or why I feel differently. To me at least, the monkey’s-paw aspect is primary now, to the point that the gee-whiz aspect hardly bears on my thinking at all. I’m not telling you that I think you’re wrong…

It's still "be careful what you wish for." We got tech and only then realized all the things that we then lost.

Well, you know, it depends on who “we” are! Lots of people predicted what would be lost. I thought many of them were a bit silly for a long time, but they were right in the end. Many others still think they’re a bit silly.

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

#207

Post by dylan604 »

otterley wrote: post #161
dylan604 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

perot museum dallas

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

#208

Post by ffsm8 »

adolph wrote: post #94
fusslo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses…

What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"

I think eg police and military personnel should be required to wear cameras while on duty and interacting with people (So not during their whole shift, but whenever they're knowingly entering an interaction)

This may be a body camera or a camera built into glasses. That is a very legit usecase as far as I'm concerned.

There are other professions in which such a device would be a net benefit, that was just a simple example.

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

#209

Post by deltoidmaximus »

aqme28 wrote: post #18

I was trying to brainstorm ways to make these palatable to general society. Because I think this kind of thing is going to happen, but a lot of people (myself included) have a legitimate problem with surreptitious recordings. It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker. Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the c…

The smartphone camera supply chain already made possible easy purchase of miniature spy camera devices of various types, they're all on Amazon. Sometimes they're pretending to be nanny cams or something but others are hidden body cameras or glasses. So pervert glasses already existed and were pretty cheap.

The downside with the Meta glasses really is this gives "cover" for wearing these kinds of things. If you caught some one with a pocket button camera or the cheap pervert glasses before, well you knew what they were up too. Now they can hide behind being a tech enthusiast or a trend follower or even some kind of fashion thing and wear them right out in the open, allowing nefarious use to be hidden in plain sight.

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

#210

Post by bjacobel »

arjie wrote: post #126

These glasses are really great to use. The camera is pretty fundamental functionality because you can use it to tell you things about the world around you. At the Vancouver Aquarium we asked about some fish we saw and stuff. I was quite surprised at the speed of the multi-modal model. It recognized the fish type, and then gave us some facts about it. Fantastic stuff, honestly. It's also marvelous for taking videos of…

How do the glasses distinguish between taking videos of your children playing at the park, and taking videos of other peoples' children playing at the park?
Post reply on HN