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

DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#41

Post by lrae »

wolvoleo wrote: post #35
lrae wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XREAL, RayNeo and there is at least one more brand that exists. You could use those for that already - though they're probably not perfect yet for that specific use case. But they will come and will get better. Apple is also supposedly still working on some and they'll likely try to get rid of the "camera issue". Or maybe they'll try to make it the new normal. But they already exist and there will be more of them in…

I love my Xreals. They don't even have a camera for tracking as they're the first generation. Unfortunately due to meta's perv glasses they are getting a bad name too, it happens when I'm using them that people think I'm recording them. They are more bulky and clearly tech glasses, and many people understandably don't know the difference. They're more noticeable than meta's glasses. I had that last time on the plane.…

I think they're all still without a camera. It's just an optional, detachable add-on for, e.g. the 1S. (Which is nice.)

But yes, they are bulky.

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#43

Post by perching_aix »

pigeons wrote: post #32
perching_aix wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that change if "everyone" did it? That "hilarious" and embarrassing misspeak or fall becomes a lot less so when it's a dime a dozen. It's weird because it is (right now), not because it's some fundamentally weird thing ordained that way forever during the big bang or whatever. Like, people don't like being watched when working, yet they'll sometimes outright forget they're screensharing. I know I do at least…

There's a novel that deals with this. I think it's called the light of other days by Arthur c. Clarke and Stephen Baxter

Thanks for the recommendation, seems a hell of a lot more interesting than a quadrillionth appeal to Orwell.

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#44

Post by perching_aix »

yallpendantools wrote: post #31
perching_aix wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that change if "everyone" did it? That "hilarious" and embarrassing misspeak or fall becomes a lot less so when it's a dime a dozen. It's weird because it is (right now), not because it's some fundamentally weird thing ordained that way forever during the big bang or whatever. Like, people don't like being watched when working, yet they'll sometimes outright forget they're screensharing. I know I do at least…

That's really not a good comparison. When you screenshare, even when you forget, you are the one who initiated the action. You also have the power to stop it when you realize it. Neither is the case with these glasses. If everyone did it, welcome to 1984 beyond Orwell's wildest imagination, where the Flock cameras have legs and look human. Who needs an elaborate entrapment operation when you can observe up close how…

People are already always recording, just with their eyes and minds. Now, that is different of course, they can only transmit and transcribe these recordings inexactly, in a limited manner, semantically compressed. But that has its own pitfalls and it does already exist.

Doing all of those things you mention is entirely optional. And so what I'm proposing is if everyone had this leverage, culture would adjust accordingly, and not abusing this would become respectable first, then an expected common courtesy later.

It's not unlike how honor systems are abusable, and their entire point is that they aren't abused despite that.

There's also the side to this where I do believe that people would reevaluate what things are benign.

Regarding the inevitable Orwell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance - one could reasonably argue in light of this is that being able to record what happens to oneself should be an inalienable human right rather. If someone is abused, they should not need the consent of their abuser to gain evidence of that.

This doesn't wash the Meta glasses however, exactly because of what the top parent comment explains as well, that its data sharing isn't actually user governed. This is prohibitive of people progressing through the aforementioned social adaptation to it, as people viscerally know by this point that these devices cannot be trusted that way (and they are correct). The rest follows.

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#46

Post by jononor »

Bender wrote: post #14
JohnFen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. My fear is that these spy glasses will actually become indistinguishable from corrective glasses. I don't look forward to a future where everyone wearing any sort of glasses will be immediately suspect.

And not having a distinguishable Bluetooth device ID to detect when one is near. [1] not tested as I do not know anyone with pervert glasses [1] - https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar

That could/should be required by law. As well as advertising the recording status. Then we can have app or OS level feature to avoid these things.

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#47

Post by soraminazuki »

BoxwoodSeed wrote: post #19
georgemcbay wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Glass came out in 2013 and got a similar reception. Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold b…

> people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, I don't think that this can be the main issue, given how nobody really cares about security cameras in public spaces or all the cameras modern cars can come with, nevermind dash cams.

People absolutely do care about security cameras, as demonstrated by ongoing opposition to Flock cameras. Security cameras have been widely deployed at a time when they weren't interconnected and people had to physically obtain tapes to look at the footage. The cost of engaging in stalking or mass-surveillance has lowered dramatically since, and people are strongly opposed to these technologies once they realize what the current capabilities are. The public never consented to any of this, but those responsible are maliciously framing the past lack of awareness as consent.

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#48

Post by wolvoleo »

lrae wrote: post #41
wolvoleo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love my Xreals. They don't even have a camera for tracking as they're the first generation. Unfortunately due to meta's perv glasses they are getting a bad name too, it happens when I'm using them that people think I'm recording them. They are more bulky and clearly tech glasses, and many people understandably don't know the difference. They're more noticeable than meta's glasses. I had that last time on the plane.…

I think they're all still without a camera. It's just an optional, detachable add-on for, e.g. the 1S. (Which is nice.) But yes, they are bulky.

Well yes the ones they actually sell right now, yes

But they announced the Aura which has 3 cams no less: https://www.xreal.com/es-en/aura

And also two of them are in the same spot as Meta's so it will be really hard for a layman to distinguish them.

Personally I don't really like the tracking because it means I have to point my face in a very specific spot to see the whole screen. Or I have to make it smaller and lose resolution. I like the way it stays locked to my vision with the cheaper ones, and the price of 200 euro makes it great to just carry around without worring too much (even though that's still a lot of money for me). I wouldn't pay 600-800 for something like this.

Re: DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

#50

Post by chmars »

There is no such ban at DEF CON. They only ban smart glasses etc. «that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not».

Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED.

So DEF CON has restrictions for photography, but as long as you do not hide your smart glasses' activity LED, you can just walk around and record everything as audio and video?

Full text at https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html:

«Smart glasses and other devices that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not, are prohibited at DEF CON, they erode trust and invade people's privacy.»

(Last paragraph. The other paragraphs refer to photography.)

Post reply on HN