Earlier quoted context omitted.
They created the concept of CSAM?
No, being so large that it's such a problem for them.
Seems like your blame is quite misplaced.
Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
371–380 of 463 posts
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FBI is interested in busting perverts in closets. That's often how they work their way up the "supply chain" when it comes to CSAM. Consumers lead them to distributors, who lead them to producers.
A fair point. But it still seems reasonable that only about 1% of suspect posts lead to a formal inquiry. Doesn’t mean they aren’t taking the report into account. You have to figure that they already have leads on most of them.
Do we have to figure that?
Do we really have to give the benefit of the doubt to the agency that was literally running one of the largest CSAM distribution outlets in the world for years as a honeypot?
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#373Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds about right. If you know someone who uses these smart glasses, it's important not to tolerate them whatsoever. Don't speak with them, interact with them. I wouldn't even recommend being in their presence.
> I wouldn't even recommend being in their presence. Great! Now do people with smart TVs and people with smart phones
I'll grant you smartphones, but smart TVs usually don't have cameras/microphones. The problem with smart glasses is that they constantly capture video and upload it to $VENDOR like in this case.
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#375Not sure which is worse here - that Meta are recording video from customers' smart glasses, or that they are firing people who talk about it.
Or maybe that people are wearing surveillance glasses while they fuck their partner? I know we need to push these companies to not be shitheads, but ultimately you can only be a shithead with the data people give to you (with the exception of things like Flock, who are shitheads with "public" surveillance data). I know our culture is so supremely fucked at this point that wearing corporate surveillance goggles during…
People upload videos of themselves having sex for anyone to see. Some people just don’t care about privacy the way you do.
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#376Not a fan of regulation in general, but would love to see a ban of cameras on glasses used in public spaces.
If anything they should be banned in private spaces, like if someone wearing them enters someone's home etc. There is no expectation of privacy in public.
While technically "there is no expectation of privacy in public space." I do see a categorical difference between creating a stored, AI processed record of random people and "people can see what you do while you're out and about". That argument was valid before the mass automation we see now, but now it is more a fig leaf than an argument.
I do not remember every single person I see on the street. What makes it Ok for some guy who will also forget me to create a stored, persistent, AI processed set of videos of me?
I do find the idea of a glasses version of an action cam quite cool, but we are talking about smart glasses from Meta here, which is a different thing.
We are talking about a network of streaming cameras moving around, filming.These videos are stored, still without any specifics about a purpose or when the data will be deleted.
Besides, the filmed people do not choose or consent to be filmed, they might not even be aware that they are filmed. This is not like a phone where you at least have a chance to see it. The person doing the filming chooses to film. Or they might not be aware they are still filming. They might also be one update away from always on. If Amazon did it with Alexa, Meta can do it with the glasses.
Of course, there are CCTV, but, at least in Europe, their use is very specific. You have to be informed about who to contact about the data, as well as the purpose of the recording and how long it will be stored. There too the scope is much more limited than a random guy filming people without their consent.
The collection is one problem. The usage is another. We know they are used to train AI for unspecified use, generative AI? Something else? Under the GDPR the purpose of the collection should be known, but in that context it is extremely murky.
Based on existing technology, it would be possible for them to use facial recognition on these videos to track individuals, building profiles as they go, including location. These profiles could even be linked to the identity of people who have been tagged in photos before. While it might be extremely difficult now, it might be possible later. Making it possible might even be what the AI training is about. The data exist, and it is unclear how long it will be kept, or whether the purpose of processing will change.
It would be bad enough if it was any company, but we are talking about Meta, a company that brought us the Cambridge analytica scandal. A company that knowingly let its users be scammed by ads for profit. Profit over ethics has been part of their DNA from the start, not an exception.
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#377This headline reminds me that “row” is one of these words I’ve been mispronouncing almost my whole life (I just learned the correct pronunciation this year). In this context row rhymes with cow,¹ now dough. ⸻ 1. The first rhyme that came to mind was bow, but I realized there was a problem with that example.
It's a source of jokes in the UK at least. Most Americans don't know the difference. As the saying goes, "two countries separated by a common language."
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't think that's fair. Smartglasses have legitimate purposes. I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.…
Vacations smart glasses are great at translating signs, historical plaques, and even ancient inscriptions on walls. (That last one surprised me.) For parents smart glasses are awesome, no need to pull out a phone to take a picture. No need to view the world through a phone screen. They are also useful as being regular BT headphones as well. Podcasts while walking w/o tiny earbuds to lose.
Gross to all three. Slight convince at the cost of full surveillance. No deal.
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangential but I always thought reality shows like Big Brother were mostly staged. Like not scripted, but definitely not natural.
Yes, they are "lightly scripted."
Didn't watch it really, I just meant that at the time (early 2000s), the very idea of the show made people say it's unethical, even with consent.
It being scripted doesn't really change much, but yes, I think your tangent is correct.
I wanted to illustrate the shift in what's considered "normal", fully acknowledging that a scripted show catering to voyeurism is different from the situation discussed here. Completely different, just related.
The "outrage fuel" that I meant was that some people consider it immoral to incentivize people to overstep boundaries of privacy, decency and human dignity.
Staged or not, the selling point of the show was that it was about "regular people".
I'm aware that this small and short-lived public discussion seems antiquated today, that's why I mentioned it.
Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like your blame is quite misplaced.
It certainly is not.
Yeah, I agree with you. Of course, it’s not Meta’s blame that the CSAM actually exists, but calling the problem of filtering it extremely difficult at Meta’s scale is a problem that is easily solvable but fundamentally requires changing how the platform works, and would likely require a lot more money to be spent.