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

641–650 of 870 posts

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

#641

Post by cjrp »

ccppurcell wrote: post #609
zmmmmm wrote: post #194

I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shi…

I mean laptop webcams also shine a light when they're recording but obviously you don't just trust the light to come on right?

I'd say the incentives are different. Laptop manufacturers see no upside from having the light stay off, whereas Meta might be the opposite.

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

#642

Post by lynx97 »

tartoran wrote: post #213
miki123211 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're incredibly popular in the blind community, and for good reason. I think even the political activists will be extremely divided on this one. You have privacy on one hand, accessibility and a genuinely life-changing technology on the other.

Do blind people not care about data privacy? Most likely they do and should ask for good TOS now while still possible.

Blind user here. Reality is, we are so disadvantaged in this world that we will gladly accept any tool that is useful. Almost nobody would ever read the TOS. Its a bit like with cars... Sure, there are some urban exceptions, but truth is, if you ask someone to give up their car, they will laugh you out the door.

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

#643

Post by NitpickLawyer »

echelon wrote: post #544
greentea23 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how a parent can be OK non-consenually uploading pictures of their children's real faces to an ad driven AI company famous for abusing people's data and manipulating children on their platforms.

I don't get how private businesses allow these. It's as creepy as Google Glass, yet we don't see the same pushback. Is it because younger people don't care about privacy anymore?

> It's as creepy as Google Glass, yet we don't see the same pushback.

Didn't it come out that the pushback against google glasses was in part made by PR companies on behalf of their competition? I remember reading something along those lines.

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

#644

Post by alkonaut »

yogorenapan wrote: post #9

The annoying thing is that even if you yourself don't use these glasses, as long as people around you do, you are still affected by it. We really need laws to limit always-on recording devices in places where we have an expectation of privacy.

And I think we need to redefine privacy as something that isn't black or white. In a bathroom or in my home I expect complete privacy. In the street I expect _less privacy_ but it doesn't mean I have "no expectation of privacy".

If my biometrics or a recording of my voice is sent to a different continent and then used to change which ad shows on the phone of the person next to me on the subway, then that's less privacy than I expected and wanted.

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

#645

Post by alkonaut »

leptons wrote: post #71
yogorenapan wrote: post #9

The annoying thing is that even if you yourself don't use these glasses, as long as people around you do, you are still affected by it. We really need laws to limit always-on recording devices in places where we have an expectation of privacy.

There are very few places you can expect privacy in public. Restrooms, changing rooms, etc. But in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US). In private settings, as with public, you are typically free to leave a setting where people are recording. The law has no specifications for what type of device can do the recording, pr for how long a recording can be.

> in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US)

Shouldn't there be a discussion about what that means? What _is_ privacy? Is it completely black or white, all or nothing? Are some kinds of privacy breaches more acceptable than others?

I feel that the "you can have no expectation of privacy in public" discussion is some times used as if it's some sort of fundamental truth that must not be challenged. If people _want_ to have more privacy in public, whatever that means, then let's make it happen.

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

#646

Post by matsemann »

roughly wrote: post #146

Everything else in this article is horrific, but this stuck out to me: > “The algorithms sometimes miss. Especially in difficult lighting conditions, certain faces and bodies become visible”. Right, “difficult lighting conditions,” not sure when we’d run into those in situations where we might be concerned with privacy. A 97% success rate looks good on paper.

"certain faces", they're definitely saying it doesn't blur non-white/black faces properly..

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

#647

Post by sheiyei »

SoftTalker wrote: post #464
chwahoo wrote: post #271

I'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Sh…

Those settings are IMO likely not doing what you think they are. Or might be doing strictly, precisely what they say they are. [OFF] "Share data about your Meta devices to help improve Meta products." doesn't preclude sharing data for other purposes. [OFF] "Allow your photos and videos to be sent to Meta's cloud for processing and temporary storage." doesn't preclude sending them to Meta's cloud for permanent storage…

And nothing is actually preventing Meta from doing what you refuse anyway. They might get caught, but what are you going to do?

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

#648

Post by qnleigh »

_ink_ wrote: post #582
zmmmmm wrote: post #194

I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shi…

I do believe people do all of that with the light on. And then there are also people who tamper with the device to deactivate the light. You can find guides for that online.

Also some people probably tape over the light for whatever reason.

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

#649

Post by matsemann »

chwahoo wrote: post #271

I'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Sh…

I'll confess I look at Meta Glasses the same as Google Glasses: A big sign saying "punch me in the face". If you enter some premises I'm in while wearing those, I'm either leaving or they will have to come off your face somehow.

Wearing these glasses is just as obnoxious as walking around putting your phone in people's faces while recording.

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

#650

Post by sheiyei »

dbreunig wrote: post #462
chwahoo wrote: post #271

I'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Sh…

Last year they pushed out an update stating if any “Meta AI” is left on, they can access image data for training, I turned the AI off and used them as headphones and taking videos while biking. After a couple rides, I couldn’t bring myself to put them on because people started to recognize them and I realized I didn’t want to be associated with them (people are right to assume Meta has access to what they see). Meta…

I think public shaming of that spyware should be a social norm.
Post reply on HN