Live data from Hacker News

DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

theregister.com

51–58 of 58 posts

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

#51
post #50

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:/…

I like how this policy document incorrectly uses commas.

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

#52
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Glass was loathed too. Unfortunately Zuckerberg learned the wrong lesson from its failure - that the issue was that people could recognize the glasses and know they were being recorded and not the actual recording itself.

If only people reacted to surveillance cameras the same way.

I'm guessing if 'surveillance camera' meant people they don't know, obviously recording their every motion from close by...they may have a different response.

It almost seems like personal Paparazzi.

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

#53
post #50

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:/…

> Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED.

The LED is neither obvious enough nor reliable enough and by the time you see it, you've already been recorded.

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

#54

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.

> nobody really cares about security cameras in public spaces or all the cameras modern cars can come with, nevermind dash cams.

Oh, people care. They just feel helpless about it all.

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

#55

It's so weird to me how people don't like these kind of glasses. They are basically a dash cam for your entire life. Seems like a pretty valuable thing to have. The only thing I object to is the facebook association.

> They are basically a dash cam for your entire life.

Most people don't want this. Dash cams are for safety and legal liability in a very specific and dangerous domain. These "smart" glasses are for wealth signaling and surreptitiously invading others' privacy. Try walking around with your phone camera recording everywhere you go amd see what kind of response you get from people. Meta's device just obscures the fact that that's what the wearer is doing.

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

#56

It's so weird to me how people don't like these kind of glasses. They are basically a dash cam for your entire life. Seems like a pretty valuable thing to have. The only thing I object to is the facebook association.

I don't think anyone's saying that wearing such glasses isn't useful or valuable. The problem is when they're used to include unconsenting others in the data collection. It's massively antisocial.

And it makes a bad situation even worse. It's already very difficult to avoid surveillance systems. I am cautious about what routes I take and where I go in order to minimize my exposure to these systems. If these spy glasses actually approach being common, then it just further reduces where I can safely go in public. At some point, going out in public at all will become infeasible.

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

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird to me that you find that weird. People in general don't like worrying that every little conversation is being recorded.

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…

> Wouldn't that change if "everyone" did it?

No. It would just make the situation totally intolerable.

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

#58

It's so weird to me how people don't like these kind of glasses. They are basically a dash cam for your entire life. Seems like a pretty valuable thing to have. The only thing I object to is the facebook association.

"The only thing I object to is the facebook association." !!!Exactly!!! If Apple comes up with smart glasses then user privacy will be job one. For meta it's all about collecting data to sell ads. Period.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN