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

471–480 of 870 posts

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

#471

Post by Dylan16807 »

refulgentis wrote: post #449
deaux wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phrasing just didn't match your point. > I have something really priceless and rare, complete luxury of choice, and 99% of people don't People working at Meta are almost without exception, people who have more luxury of choice than nearly anyone on the planet. It's very important to keep repeating this, and not say the direct opposite as you did. You can make your point without doing so.

You keep restating that Meta employees are enormously privileged as though that contradicts me. It doesn't - it's the premise . The entire phenomenon I'm describing, in response to "I cannot comprehend why", is that privilege and felt optionality are different things, and the gap between them is where people get stuck.

So what you have over them isn't freedom of choice, it's knowledge of your freedom of choice. That's a very important difference.

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

#472

Post by iJohnDoe »

binarynate wrote: post #253

At a friend's party recently, I met someone who told me that they had worked in data for Meta's glasses division and warned me never to get Meta glasses for this very reason—that the workers can see everything. They told me of a comical case where a guy pulled down his pants to look at his penis, asked "Meta, what is this?", and the AI responded that it was a thumb. XD

This means actual Meta/Facebook employees are seeing or at least hearing about actual footage. Not just third-world contractor employees.

Absolutely crazy that a Meta employee saying not to buy them. Everyone should know this right now.

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

#473

Post by SoftTalker »

al_borland wrote: post #370
grigri907 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I clearly remember a time when phones first got cameras and there were debates on whether or not we should prohibit phones in public bathrooms. Perceptions changed. Fast.

I think the social contract is still such that your phone’s camera should not be used in the bathroom. I’ve seen stories of people banned from gyms for taking selfies in the locker room as people were walking by.

Yeah sometimes the younger gym bros are in the dressing room at my gym taking pictures of themselves in the mirror. If they accidentally include my ~60 year old ass cheeks in the background, IDGAF. Probably ruins the photo for them.

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

#474

Post by dataflow »

robocat wrote: post #163
dataflow wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is it's not just surprising from a privacy standpoint but also from an engineering standpoint -- this sounds very data-, power-, and storage-intensive, in a device that's very constrained on all sides, so it wouldn't have even occurred to me this was a possibility. When are they even uploading all the videos without blowing through their power budget and internet data limits? Are they heavily compressing it…

> data limits The data required is small. Each embedding might be 1/2 kB per face. > power budget To process a video for biometric feature extraction, it might take 0.5% to 2% of the total power used to record a video. Video uses a lot of power (compression, screen, etc) Assuming you've got a modern device (e.g. with Apple Neutral Engine). Disclosure: Googled info (Gemini).

> The data required is small. Each embedding might be 1/2 kB per face.

"Embedding"? This is what the article says:

"In some videos you can see someone going to the toilet, or getting undressed. I don’t think they know, because if they knew they wouldn’t be recording."

You're saying they're watching "embedding"s here?

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

#475

Post by deaux »

Why was the title changed from "The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything" to "A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses"? It doesn't go against any guidelines:

> Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.

> If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link.

> If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

The literal URL slug is

> metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-privacy-concerns-workers-say-we-see-everything

The page title is

> Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything”

The new title goes against the guidelines by editorializing. I've never seen HN do this before, what's going on here?

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

#476

Post by SoftTalker »

binarynate wrote: post #253

At a friend's party recently, I met someone who told me that they had worked in data for Meta's glasses division and warned me never to get Meta glasses for this very reason—that the workers can see everything. They told me of a comical case where a guy pulled down his pants to look at his penis, asked "Meta, what is this?", and the AI responded that it was a thumb. XD

Better response than "Somewhat smaller than average"

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

#477

Post by deaux »

notpushkin wrote: post #468

Has the submission title just been editorialized? I swear I’ve seen it mentioning data collection before, now it’s just bland.

Yes it has, in a way that goes directly against HN guidelines. The page title is "Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything”".

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

#478

Post by qsera »

hackyhacky wrote: post #393
qsera wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> That is not so bad, right? It is not like they are wiped off the face of the earth. They just lose free $$$. I have no idea where you get the idea of "free money." The government invests in science, business, and developments that help the country; and decisions involving that investment should not be colored by adherence to the current administration's political agenda. I'm not concerned about the careers of the a…

> And that's enough for me

So you ll start rejecting any argument that you supported before, as soon as a "Nazi" agrees with it?

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

#479

Post by Retric »

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…

That means far less than you might think. As long as officer testimony is given a privileged status the courtroom there’s minimal risk to civilians that body cameras are making things worse for them.

100% percent of prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions with body cameras have used officer testimony as evidence to prosecute civilians. Meanwhile I suspect the use of officer testimony is even more lopsided in favor of cops.

Post reply on HN