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

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: Nearby Glasses

#211

Post by itishappy »

nomel wrote: post #202
itishappy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existing alternatives also make me uncomfortable for the exact same reasons. I would prefer to avoid anyone who purchases a pinhole camera for public use, regardless of whether it came with an LED to indicate recording. To their credit, smart glasses are an obvious signal for me to avoid. That doesn't make me appreciate them any more.

Every cellphone in every hand is a recording device, very often used in public. Where I am, you can look most anywhere, at any time, and see someone on a phone call, taking a picture/video, posing, etc. What's the significant difference that I'm not seeing, especially since the smart glasses have an indicator, and cellphones DO NOT.

No difference. If I see your recording in public, either via cell phone or smart glasses or shoulder mounted news rig, I do my best to steer clear. I don't like Alexa or Flock or whatever else either.

I do not agree that the existence of surveillance tech justifies the expansion of surveillance tech.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#212

Post by drdaeman »

itishappy wrote: post #192
drdaeman wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart glasses (or any camera-equipped device) don’t have to record anything to provide utility. If anything, the primary utility of smart glasses is the wearable display, not camera. YMMV, of course. But even machine vision-capable devices can do a lot of useful things without causing you any trouble, unless your issues are more of a religious concern rather than anything substantial.

I understand there are legitimate usages. There are also usages that make me uncomfortable. My issue is that I'm unequipped to know the difference. Smart glasses sans camera would address my complaints (I take no issue with smartwatches, for instance), but that admittedly decreases the utility.

I'm not entirely sure what's your exact threat scenario, if someone records your image, especially given that you've said it doesn't matter to you whether it gets siphoned straight into some megacorp database, or private home server, or gets processed on-device only.

But... aren't already existing protections that make it e.g. illegal to distribute your image or its derivatives sufficient? If someone does you wrong, you can seek recourse. If everyone is respectful of each other (and we hate corporations instead of technologies), we enable a lot legitimate uses, making the world better: more accessible, and easier to learn and understand.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#213

Post by drdaeman »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #186
aa-jv wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're assuming every country has laws similar to, I'm guessing, america.

It's a more fundamental issue than those legal oddities of the day. It's whether people have a right to remember, right to share their memories (there must be lots of nuances here), and whether others have a right to be forgotten or deny some or all of such sharing - and how all those play together.

I can't wait for the day brain-machine interfaces will become more advanced and commonplace (so cyborgs become something way more advanced than just limb prosthetics), and hope the day comes fast enough so the true issue is forced before any decisions are made off the ill-informed assumptions and the shuttle designs are left to depend on a width of horse's ass.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#214

Post by itishappy »

drdaeman wrote: post #212
itishappy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand there are legitimate usages. There are also usages that make me uncomfortable. My issue is that I'm unequipped to know the difference. Smart glasses sans camera would address my complaints (I take no issue with smartwatches, for instance), but that admittedly decreases the utility.

I'm not entirely sure what's your exact threat scenario, if someone records your image, especially given that you've said it doesn't matter to you whether it gets siphoned straight into some megacorp database, or private home server, or gets processed on-device only. But... aren't already existing protections that make it e.g. illegal to distribute your image or its derivatives sufficient? If someone does you wrong,…

Oh, it very much does matter to me what happens to recordings! I should have made that more clear. Self hosting is infinitely preferable than sending that info to Facebook. This isn't enough to flip my opinion on the technology in general, but if I had a friend who wanted to self-host their own smart glasses, I would not mind. The keyword there is friend.

My issue is that I don't have the ability to audit every smart glasses user to find out what their tech stack is, so I'm looking at averages. If I saw that smart glasses were being used and promoted as assistive technology, I would likely form a different opinion. Unfortunately, that's not what I perceive. I am open to the possibility that smart glasses could end up a net positive on our society, but the history of similar technologies does not encourage.

I will think more on your comments here. I find them quite insightful.

Edit: For a rather recent example of my threat model, I will repost part of my comment from elsewhere in the thread:

> I watched a guy setup a cell phone to record his laps in a pool yesterday. He swam one lap right about a meter from the 15 year-old girl playing with her mom, then climbed out of the pool, shut off his phone, and walked away. The remainder of the pool was open. Should I have called him out? I couldn't decide, and therefore didn't. This is normal now.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#215

Post by nomel »

itishappy wrote: post #211
nomel wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every cellphone in every hand is a recording device, very often used in public. Where I am, you can look most anywhere, at any time, and see someone on a phone call, taking a picture/video, posing, etc. What's the significant difference that I'm not seeing, especially since the smart glasses have an indicator, and cellphones DO NOT.

No difference. If I see your recording in public, either via cell phone or smart glasses or shoulder mounted news rig, I do my best to steer clear. I don't like Alexa or Flock or whatever else either. I do not agree that the existence of surveillance tech justifies the expansion of surveillance tech.

I see. This is entirely reasonable. :)

Re: Nearby Glasses

#216

Post by jibal »

jibal wrote: post #196
jibal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the opposite of honor-based, and those stories are warnings about going down that path.

P.S. The response to my comment is complete nonsense. "honor-based", as used here to mean acting with integrity, has nothing at all to do with honor killings.

Again, "honor-based" as used in this discussion is about integrity and has nothing to do with cultures of honor ... notably the word "based" doesn't occur anywhere in the cited material. No one is trying to change anything but someone is trolling hard (and not acting with integrity), and threats about things not going well are unwelcome.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/honor

> 1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions.

Enough (more than enough) said. Over and out forever.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#217

Post by aa-jv »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #186
aa-jv wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're assuming every country has laws similar to, I'm guessing, america.

Its the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it covers you whether you like it or not, thankfully. You might not like it but thats gonna change the moment you need to exercise that very right yourself.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#219

Post by itishappy »

aa-jv wrote: post #217
IncreasePosts wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming every country has laws similar to, I'm guessing, america.

Its the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it covers you whether you like it or not, thankfully. You might not like it but thats gonna change the moment you need to exercise that very right yourself.

How do you figure? There is no "right to record," nor is surveillance mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, it points out in Article 12 and 29 that rights and freedoms can and should be limited by law if they impinge on the rights and freedoms of others, such as those mentioned in Article 12:

> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

That doesn't seem as clear cut as you're implying.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#220

Post by aa-jv »

itishappy wrote: post #219
aa-jv wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it covers you whether you like it or not, thankfully. You might not like it but thats gonna change the moment you need to exercise that very right yourself.

How do you figure? There is no "right to record," nor is surveillance mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, it points out in Article 12 and 29 that rights and freedoms can and should be limited by law if they impinge on the rights and freedoms of others, such as those mentioned in Article 12: > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor t…

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Seeking and receiving information covers gathering facts, evidence, or observations from public events or spaces (e.g., documenting protests, government actions, police conduct, or everyday occurrences visible in public).

You might not like it, but its a key mechanism by which we, the people, keep despots and the police state in check.

Post reply on HN