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

Nearby Glasses

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 235 posts

Re: Nearby Glasses

#51

Post by leephillips »

davidee wrote: post #43
btbuildem wrote: post #41

Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll take my chances, thank you. I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.

Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#52

Post by crustaceansoup »

Morizero wrote: post #46
burkaman wrote: post #3

Tried this on a Pixel 9, after allowing permissions the Start Scanning button does nothing, and there's nothing in the debug log. I do like the idea and might try again in the future if it gets updated. Seems like a good candidate for F-Droid instead of Google Play.

I had to tap the sprocket in the top right and enable Foreground Service to get the button to work

On my Pixel 9 this overlaps the status bar, and can't be clicked. I worked around that by split-screening it with another app.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#54

Post by emptybits »

zephen wrote: post #38
emptybits wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like an honor-based culture at scale. Except the basis of that culture would not be honour, would it? A critical mass of people scrutinizing and reporting others' actions might lead to a compliance-based culture. It's different IMO. i.e. intrinsic motivation to behave well (honour, morality, decency) versus extrinsic motivation to behave well (fear of unpopularity, law enforcement, mob reaction, etc.)

I think you're missing the point. Or, on re-reading, the parent is missing the point. "Honor culture" or "Culture of honor" is the term for people who are thin-skinned, quick to offense, and worried more about appearances than substance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_Uni... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing It's all about a shame-based society. When someone is made to feel ashamed…

Thanks. I had to be reminded about that phrase "honor culture" and, yes, I've heard that definition before.

I was focused on how I think an "honourable person" behaves, which is ... IMO ... someone who behaves well regardless of whether or not someone is watching them. i.e. being guided by a personal moral compass, without cultural shame, guilt, government laws, religious conventions, or physical fear being primary motivators

But of course, if I adopt a religion's or legal system's idea of morality as my personal compass (certainly the easiest way to go, and easily installed in youth) ... then the distinction falls apart. Cheers.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#57

Post by NoahZuniga »

btbuildem wrote: post #41

Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.

> judge had for lunch

This would be a criminal matter, so a jury would have to decide if you're guilty. I feel like you'd have a hard time convincing 12 jurors that you're doing something wrong here.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#58

Post by piskov »

cpeterso wrote: post #15

Can the app run on smart glasses, warning you of other smart glasses users nearby? You might not see the notification on your phone.

That would be like antropic and google crying about china stealing the weights that were originally built by scraping as fuck stolen content :-)

Re: Nearby Glasses

#59

Post by catoc »

p_ing wrote: post #18

The dichotomy between the statement in the repo "False positives are likely " and the app message "Smart Glasses are probably nearby" is interesting.

“When using the app you are likely to experience false positives, and when the app alerts you, smart glasses are probably nearby.”

Nothing contradictory there.

Even “…when the app alerts you, smart glasses are likely nearby” might be reasonable.

Re: Nearby Glasses

#60

Post by magicalist »

leephillips wrote: post #51
davidee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll take my chances, thank you. I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.

Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required.

> Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and no consent is required.

First, note that "filming" in public is not necessarily legal in every state if you include recording audio of conversations you're not party to.

Second, the GP said should be illegal without consent, so clearly was talking about what's they consider right, not necessarily what is.

But most importantly, "filming and photographing people in public" is also obviously not what the GP was talking about. They said:

> Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal.

And, actually, extracting biometrics from video of people and tracking them/data mining them without consent is in fact not legal in several states already, and potentially federal law, depending on what they do.

Post reply on HN