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

Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

svd.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 870 posts

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#301

Post by ccccrrriis »

I got a pair as a gift and didn't look much into them but I have to be honest, I assumed any data I captured - voice, video, etc. - would be sent to their servers (to use their models) and they'd be using it for training with humans in the loop.

Tbh the only thing I really use the glasses for are listening to music or talking on the phone - so basically how you'd use airpods. I don't use airpods because I had an ear injury that prevents me from using them on my left ear, so these glasses were kinda nice for that. I really wish they didn't have a camera though because I do always feel compelled to remove them if I interact with people.

I also have to add that the quality is mediocre. They're a month old and the case has problems charging sometimes, and one of the screws is always coming loose at a hinge no matter how often I retighten that side.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#303

Post by galleywest200 »

ninininino wrote: post #33
aucisson_masque wrote: post #15

Beside the privacy part, I fail to see what value these glasses bring that a smartphone with a camera can't do already ? And you're still forced to carry a smartphone anyway with these glasses since they require internet connection. Is this fashion, or something I'm not aware of ? They look horrendous to me.

POV camera footage without holding your phone out in front of you distracting you from having to look down at your phone instead of up at the thing you're filming? Imagine you want to capture your POV but also want to be present and in the moment, not looking at a 6 inch rectangle screen to check your framing of what you're capturing.

Go-Pro on forehead? Thats what outdoor enthusiasts do. If you need to make room for a headlamp then pin it to your jacket maybe.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#304

Post by WD-42 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #265
blakesterz wrote: post #29

Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…

I really cannot comprehend how someone can work for a company like that and maintain possession of a soul. I feel like the older I’m getting, the further away I am from understanding.

Gen Z doesn’t seem to carry the millennial “making the world a better place” sensibility. They are all hustle culture, all the time. While I appreciate a lot of their culture this is the aspect that makes me nervous about the future.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#305

Post by godelski »

blakesterz wrote: post #29

Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…

I'm curious how the engineers justify this. I'm generally interested.

Please don't respond with how you think people justify, I want to hear the actual reasons. I'm tired of speculative responses to questions like these.

Please do share if you've had to deal with similar situations too. And feel free to respond with green accounts.

I legitimately want to understand why this happens. Not why from management, why from engineers.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#306

Post by Dylan16807 »

sillystuff wrote: post #155
Retric wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cop body cam footage is more likely to help you vs a cop than get you into trouble because a cop is already there watching what you’re doing. IE: Thank god the cop’s camera was off when I was buying crack, I might have gotten in trouble otherwise… fails because a cop was already watching you. Cops also announce their presence in uniforms and are operating as government agents. People already moderate their behavior a…

> body cameras had no statistically significant impact on officer use of force, civilian complaints, or arrests for disorderly conduct by officers. In other words, body cameras did not reduce police misconduct . . . 92.6 percent of prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions with body cameras have used that footage as evidence to prosecute civilians, while just 8.3 percent have used it to prosecute police officers[1] Cops…

Evidence against them improving behavior isn't evidence they're a significant surveillance tool.

And the biggest fix there is you need to not let them control it.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#307

Post by jim33442 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #120
pluc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They better invest in frame designs too cause as soon as they're recognizable they're gonna get slapped off faces real quick

Maybe we'll see the revival of the term "glasshole"

The Google glasses were asking to be bullied, but the Meta ones are cooler looking

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#308

Post by fc417fc802 »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #176
deanputney wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They almost certainly already do. If you just look into Axon you'll see they have tons of cloud-based and AI products. Axon is the major player in police body cameras in the US.

No experience w/ Axon, but I work adjacent their major competitor. I don't know about the whole "training AI" angle, but Motorola Watchguard body and in-car cameras absolutely upload to a hosted service.

Uploading to a hosted service is not even remotely the same thing. In one of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with the Axon cams don't record until manually activated and the footage is treated as secured evidence. Other than being subject to FOIA or analyzed for a case it isn't generally accessible.

That said I'm not sure how much of that is merely department policy versus local law.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#309

Post by godelski »

rudhdb773b wrote: post #298
blakesterz wrote: post #29

Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…

I never understand why a company would put something like this in writing. I worked at a midsize financial company before and whenever there was something even approaching a legal or ethical grey area, we'd pick up the phone and say come to my office to talk, and then you'd close the door. We weren't doing anything nearly as nefarious as Meta, yet everyone was always aware that email and phone conversations were reco…

Same reason project 2025 was put in writing. When you have large organizations you need to distribute communication. It's really just about cooperation and logistics

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#310

Post by jim33442 »

dylan604 wrote: post #225
hightrix wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any less obviously aggressive tactics we can use? Wear something that is blinding to the cameras, or something else to obfuscate?

I've always wanted to sew very bright IR LEDs into a hat that would blind a camera. Your face would naturally be shadowed by the bill of the hat as that's its intended purpose. The IR would hopefully make the camera want to adjust shutter speed and gain/ISO while assuming a fixed aperture lens.

There was a fictional version of this in the Artemis Fowl books. My old camcorder picked up a lot of IR outside of visible range, but I think newer sensors are much less susceptible to this.
Post reply on HN