Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#51

Post by voidUpdate » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:03 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #43

voidUpdate wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the reasonable and legitimate uses of smart glasses with cameras in that can record without the subject being aware?

I already noted it in the answer. If a person feels at risk, or even if they're on vacation, they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public, just as they could with a phone. Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know. There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras pointed at the st…

If someone is recording you on video with a smartphone, you are generally aware of it, because it has to be pointed at you. Sure, you have a right to record people in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but I would quite like to know if you are recording me. I'm also not terribly worried about people recording me having sex or being naked in public without my knowledge...

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#52

Post by getnormality » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:04 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #15

getnormality wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specifically do you mean? It is by design that smart glasses see the things happening in front of their users? Yes, it is. That is why people buy them.

Huh. There you go again, thinking everyone else is an idiot. Capture of video data of users by Meta is never acceptable. It would not be acceptable for any phone, and it is not acceptable for any glass, ever.

I don't know why people buy smart glasses. Maybe they buy them for video capture. If so, the videos go to Meta's servers and Meta might do things with them. They might be criticized for not reviewing them in certain cases. That's one reason why I wouldn't buy Meta smart glasses.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#53

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #43

voidUpdate wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the reasonable and legitimate uses of smart glasses with cameras in that can record without the subject being aware?

I already noted it in the answer. If a person feels at risk, or even if they're on vacation, they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public, just as they could with a phone. Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know. There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras pointed at the st…

> they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public

Subject to local law. It's an offence to make indecent images of children, for example.

However, it is absolutely not the case that Meta has a right to that data, as a data controller under GDPR.

> feels at risk

This is a red flag phrase: it's a justification that people whip out for all sorts of unjustified things up to and including murder.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#54

Post by jmyeet » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC

So I've never had a smart speaker in my house (Alexa, Apple, Google). I've just never been comfortable with the idea of having an always-on cloud-connected microphone in my house. Not because I thought these companies would deliberately start listening and recording in my house but because they will likely be careless with that data and it'll open the door for law enforcement to request it. Consider the Google Wi-fi scraping case from STreetView.

Or they might start scanning for "problematic" behavior, a bit like the Apple CSAM fingerprinting initiative.

So not one part of me would ever buy Meta glasses (or the Snap glasses before that). You simply don't have sufficient control over the recordings and big tech companies can't be trusted, as we've witnessed from outsourced workers sharing explicit images. And I bet that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I honestly don't understand why anyone would get these and trust Meta to manage the risks.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#55

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:07 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #41

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #28

Not a fan of regulation in general, but would love to see a ban of cameras on glasses used in public spaces.

Why? What's the difference between that and one of the many, many concealed camera options that you don't even notice? Just that it's noticeable? I don't think that's a good enough reason for yet-more-regulation. You're already being recorded everywhere you go in public by the authorities, and often by people standing right next to you unnoticed, so just act accordingly.

[deleted]

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#56

Post by ignoramous » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:08 PM UTC

gorbachev wrote: post #2

Meta cancels the contract with the outsourcing company they contracted to classify smart glasses content after employees at the company whistleblow about serious privacy issues with the content they were paid to classify.

> the content they were paid to classify

  A Kenyan workers' organisation alleges Meta's decision was caused by the staff speaking out.

  Meta says it's because Sama did not meet its standards, a criticism Sama rejects ...

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#57

Post by steve_adams_86 » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:08 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #31

jofzar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a name for these people, glassholes

[flagged]

I can't deprive someone of their right to use them, but I can refuse to interact with someone who's wearing them. This seems like a fair natural consequence. Feel free to wear them, but I won't speak to you when you do.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#58

Post by schnitzelstoat » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #28

Not a fan of regulation in general, but would love to see a ban of cameras on glasses used in public spaces.

If anything they should be banned in private spaces, like if someone wearing them enters someone's home etc.

There is no expectation of privacy in public.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#59

Post by jcgrillo » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #31

jofzar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a name for these people, glassholes

[flagged]

If you walk up to me and shove a camera in my face I'll get very loud and very angry with you very quickly. That's kind of paradoxical, if you intended the camera to make you feel safer. I don't think I'm in the minority.

Re: Meta in row after workers who saw smart glasses users having sex lose jobs

#60

Post by stfp » Thu, Apr 30, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #41

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #28

Not a fan of regulation in general, but would love to see a ban of cameras on glasses used in public spaces.

Why? What's the difference between that and one of the many, many concealed camera options that you don't even notice? Just that it's noticeable? I don't think that's a good enough reason for yet-more-regulation. You're already being recorded everywhere you go in public by the authorities, and often by people standing right next to you unnoticed, so just act accordingly.

Because they will be popular and lots of people will buy them and use them all the time, leading to much more generalized surveillance than the concealed options that only a tiny tiny fraction of people would buy or use (and that we should also regulate)