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

381–390 of 870 posts

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

#381

Post by jcgrillo »

alterom wrote: post #346
zmmmmm wrote: post #194

I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shi…

>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…

This is a very important window into how the industry, by and large, views users and the concept of privacy. It's not merely authoritarian and predatory, to them users are subhuman.

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

#382

Post by refulgentis »

deaux wrote: post #314
refulgentis wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 37, single, no family or extended family b/c of an...interesting...childhood. Every day I understand more and more that I have something really priceless and rare, complete luxury of choice, and 99% of people don't. (as with all things, it has its downside: nothing matters!) I refused to get "stuck" in my hometown, which motivated me from college dropout to FAANG. Once I got there, it was novel to me that even ri…

Of course they have a choice, just like you do. You're making excuses for them that they don't need. They're actively choosing the "work at Meta and maintain lifestyle" rather than "don't work at Meta and maybe slightly change lifestyle". Every day, they make that choice. Take all the people who get and got laid off. Their life goes on. > responsiblities that come with obvious, healthy, lifestyle choices (i.e. marria…

I think you're arguing with a point I didn't make. I'm not excusing anyone. I'm describing a mechanism in response to "I cannot comprehend why." Here, why people stay in situations they might privately find distasteful. That's a different project than assigning moral grades.

"They have a choice" is of course literally true. It's also not very interesting? Everyone always has a choice in the tautological sense. The question the parent raised was how do people live with it, and the answer is: the same way people live with all kinds of things. Incrementally, surrounded by context that makes it feel normal, with stakes that feel high relative to their baseline, not yours.

Your 99.9999% stat kind of makes my point for me. Those people also didn't get a $400k offer from Meta. The trap isn't marriage+kids, it's young + don't know better + land there + marriage + kids+a lifestyle calibrated to a specific income, plus the identity that comes with it. The golden handcuffs thing is a cliché because it's real.

None of this is a defense of working on things you find unconscionable. It's just that "they could simply choose not to" has never once in history been a sufficient explanation of human behavior.

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

#383

Post by jcgrillo »

drawnwren wrote: post #371
alterom wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…

As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

or more recently the times he lied to Congress, all the layoffs, the "metaverse", etc

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

#384

Post by al_borland »

bogwog wrote: post #159
algoth1 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, it’s a life saver for blind people

How so? I'd expect the opposite > Hey Meta, is it safe to cross the street > You are absolutely correct to check whether it's safe to cross before crossing! (emoji). Let me check for you(emoji) > ...10% ...40% ...80% ...100% DONE. (made up progress bar) > It is perfectly safe to cross right now! (emoji) > Thanks Meta! (user dies)

There is an app called Be My Eyes where blind people can use the app to be connected to someone who can see and ask questions. An example might be, “is this a red or brown sweater.”

It actually looks like it added AI functionality, so not every question goes out to a live helper, but they still do have that option.

Something like the Meta glasses could mean a lot less reliance on app that reach out to actual people, or looking for the phone all the time, for day-to-day help with things like this.

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

#385

Post by transitorykris »

sharkweek wrote: post #374

I really want to make a fake PSA that suggests anyone wearing the Meta glasses is probably a pervert and should be proactively avoided/shunned. This product cannot be allowed to exist in the type of world I want to live in. The power structure wants these to succeed in the market for so many horrific reasons and it will require some serious societal muscle to reject them.

It’s been done before. Send the glassholes to Molotov’s in SF. https://sf.eater.com/2014/2/26/6272945/heres-the-video-of-th...

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

#386

Post by pluc »

juleiie wrote: post #313
pluc wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slapping a pair of glasses that are recording you, processing your face, sending biometrics and images back to one of the worst privacy offenders on the planet off of the face of someone who is willingly doing all that without asking your permission is a perfectly appropriate reaction. Put your shoulder into it. I'd rather we normalize that than adversarial fashion.. but that's probably what you were looking for.

Yeah sure you are going to start slapping people on the street mr badass guy. That’s all cool and fun until someone pulls a knife on you. Look, the previous commenter has legitimate question how can we do it for real. Not just speed run to the gates of afterlife after touching the wrong person.

> Look, the previous commenter has legitimate question how can we do it for real.

I gave parent the term "adversarial fashion" as an answer to their query, they should look that up.

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

#387

Post by posnet »

sharkweek wrote: post #374

I really want to make a fake PSA that suggests anyone wearing the Meta glasses is probably a pervert and should be proactively avoided/shunned. This product cannot be allowed to exist in the type of world I want to live in. The power structure wants these to succeed in the market for so many horrific reasons and it will require some serious societal muscle to reject them.

I am forever reminded of this stupid cartoon: https://youtu.be/6PY8C1KmNwM?si=_WU_lstzp_5mFrxk

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

#388

Post by [deleted] »

drawnwren wrote: post #371
alterom wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…

As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

[deleted]

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

#389

Post by al_borland »

drnick1 wrote: post #297
mayowaxcvi wrote: post #145

My concern was whether the glasses might record or transmit data while switched off or in standby mode. From what I can tell, they don’t do this intentionally. So the risk is broadly similar to other modern electronic devices. The creepiness concern is real, but I think people misplace where the actual surveillance happens. The most consequential stores of personal data aren’t ad networks they’re things like banks, h…

> Realistically, there’s very little an individual can do to completely opt out. Yes, but it's possible, at the cost of some minor inconvenience, to greatly limit data collected about you. Communicate over private channels (Signal, own XMPP servers, NOT Whatsapp), pay in cash or crypto, runs free software on all your devices, and deny Internet access to devices across the board (this includes all TVs/monitors, all "s…

> it is difficult to prevent others to intentionally or unintentionally provide data to surveillance companies

One that bothers me a lot are all the apps that want people to share your contacts to find your friends. This is a quick way for them to get all the contact information, which may also include birthdays and other more sensitive details.

Even if I were to never make a Facebook account, I could almost guarantee they still have my name, address, phone number, DOB, and maybe more.

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

#390

Post by rationalist »

FarmerPotato wrote: post #365
rationalist wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I get a pair of camera glasses that uses AI to identify other camera glasses, and controls a moveable laser to blast the cameras on the other glasses?

I hope that was sarcasm. That's a bad idea on so many levels.

Yes; I don't want to accidentally blind people.
Post reply on HN