Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by hackyhacky » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:01 AM UTC

monero-xmr wrote: post #463

hackyhacky wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> My hunch is you would call me a Nazi

No, I would call you a Nazi for promoting the idea that Jews are organized to replace and outbreed gentiles (as says Musk), for denying the validity of any election that your party loses (as has Trump), for unilaterally seizing powers constitutionally held by the legislature (as has Trump), for using your elected office power to enrich yourself and your friends (as had Trump), for denying that American citizens of different ethnicities are "real Americans" (as has Trump), for attacking non-partisan institutions because they're politically inconvenient (as has Trump).

Popularity is no defense . Nazi opinions were popular in the 1930s, and now they're popular again. They are still Nazi opinions.

You can check voter ID all day, I don't care. This administration has crossed many red lines.

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

#482

Post by stbtrax » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:02 AM UTC

nosequel wrote: post #121

I won't even walk into a house with Alexa devices around, there is no way I'm going to let Meta glasses be in the same room as me.

How does that even work? Do you ask before you go in whether they have devices? and do you not go around mobile phones with ai assistants?

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

#483

Post by stbtrax » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:03 AM UTC

galleywest200 wrote: post #303

ninininino wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this is like telling people who use smartphones to carry a laptop with a cell modem card

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

#484

Post by sumeno » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:04 AM UTC

jackcviers3 wrote: post #456

AshamedBadger56 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It seems like a more polite way of handling this in private spaces is just to ask that people take them off - just like we do when a pig farmer walks into our house with their boots on." Just FYI, they do heavily market this towards RX glasses wearers. So, you wouldn't quite be able to just as simply ask someone to take off their glasses and no longer be able to see.

I'm going to guess that someone who can afford smart glasses can afford to have another pair of unsmart glasses. What is it about the _glasses_ that people find creepier than a smartphone that can literally do even more invasive things than the current glasses technology?

It's very obvious when someone is recording you with a smartphone

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

#485

Post by disqard » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:04 AM UTC

deaux wrote: post #475

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 o…

I'm with you. I thought the title captured and represented the OG article accurately.

What's going on?

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

#486

Post by hackyhacky » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:04 AM UTC

qsera wrote: post #478

hackyhacky wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

I'll fight against any position that supports dehumanizing people for their ethnicity, that sets political ideology on a pedestal and uses it as a tool to attack science, institutions, and justice. As should you.

It seems like you're upset by my use of the word Nazi. You should instead focus on the ideas that I'm arguing against.

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

#487

Post by monero-xmr » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:05 AM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #481

monero-xmr wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> My hunch is you would call me a Nazi No, I would call you a Nazi for promoting the idea that Jews are organized to replace and outbreed gentiles (as says Musk), for denying the validity of any election that your party loses (as has Trump), for unilaterally seizing powers constitutionally held by the legislature (as has Trump), for using your elected office power to enrich yourself and your friends (as had Trump), f…

[flagged]

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

#488

Post by camillomiller » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:09 AM UTC

deaux wrote: post #475

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 o…

@dang do you care explaining? This looks really terrible.

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

#489

Post by _trampeltier » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:13 AM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #43

MerrimanInd wrote: post #17

I was in engineering school back in ~2012 when Google Glass came out. One of my classmates got hold of a pair when they were still quite uncommon and wore them to an extracurricular club meeting. Within minutes someone made a comment about him wearing the "creeper" glasses and asked if he was filming. He never wore them to the club again. I just don't see a world where that doesn't happen with Meta glasses.

Judging from the examples reported on in the article, Meta's smart glasses are either very easy to accidentally trigger or quite popular with actual creeps

There are a lot of creeps out there. In summertime I'm pretty often tanning in nude beaches. Almost every time, somewhere there is a guy around with a cellphone or such a spy glass.

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

#490

Post by greentea23 » Tue, Mar 03, 2026, 5:14 AM UTC

bravoetch wrote: post #437

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.

Your reaction appears to be ignorant of the real use cases for these. A friend of mine is totally blind, and uses meta glasses. He finds them incredibly useful, as do others.

This makes me more sad than hopeful. Great they get use out of it, but there instead should be a medically approved HIPAA compliant device for this purpose built by scientists in the open for all to enjoy. Instead the disabled are coersed to give up all privacy of themselves and others around them both digitally and physically. And more importantly they have to give up their sovereignty over the means of their enhancement by it being closed off and eventually enshittified for customers yet opened up for exploitation by facebook and their corporate and government customers.

Sadly the disabled have no choice but to accept the status quo, and facbook gets to virtue signal while holding humanity back another cycle by not selling us an open platform that would actually help people at scale not just now but forever.