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

651–660 of 870 posts

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

#651

Post by riffraff »

zer0zzz wrote: post #569
echelon wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The youths literally do not care from what I observe. How many people under 25 do you interact with on a day to day basis?

I'm pretty sure they care who takes pictures or videos of them. Try going on a train and taking pictures of a young woman or man. The only difference is these are less noticeable.

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

#652

Post by pastage »

zer0zzz wrote: post #569
echelon wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The youths literally do not care from what I observe. How many people under 25 do you interact with on a day to day basis?

There are bubbles, you are obviously in one if you do not know any privacy concerned under 25. I know 15 year olds who are extreme privacy freaks, then I care about it so it might be easier to find those people. I do find that it is the people that I think are least likely are the one who are the most extreme.

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

#653

Post by matsemann »

amszmidt wrote: post #572
jspdown wrote: post #557

Don't you need to obtain consent before filming random people in the street? I already feel uncomfortable when someone takes a photo in public and I happen to be in it, but this type of device takes things to an entirely different level. With smart glasses, there's no visible cue that you're being recorded. No phone held up, no camera in sight. I'm questioning the legality of this in Europe, where privacy laws tend t…

In Sweden, you're allowed to film/photograph in public without the need for any consent. There is (in general) no expectation of privacy in public in Europe. How you can use the material though, is a different matter ...

Note that there is a difference between being allowed to take a photograph, and being allowed to share it. Unless you're threatening or harassing, you're mostly free to photograph as you want. But you might not be allowed to publish it.

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

#654

Post by aaa_aaa »

drawnwren wrote: post #371
alterom wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…

As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

Character almost never changes.

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

#655

Post by breve »

Meta's business model is premised on intensive and pervasive user surveillance.

When you use Meta's products and services you are tagged, tracked, and commodified like an animal. You are cattle.

The question isn't whether or not Meta's AI smart glasses raise data privacy concerns.

The question is why use anything from Meta in the first place?

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

#656

Post by Sebguer »

qnleigh wrote: post #648
_ink_ wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

my understanding is that the light is resistant to simply taping over it, and recording can't happen in this case. you have to intentionally modify the glasses to be able to surreptitiously record.

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

#657

Post by sneak »

breve wrote: post #655

Meta's business model is premised on intensive and pervasive user surveillance. When you use Meta's products and services you are tagged, tracked, and commodified like an animal. You are cattle. The question isn't whether or not Meta's AI smart glasses raise data privacy concerns. The question is why use anything from Meta in the first place?

The answer: because Meta has deliberately and intentionally inserted themselves into the social fabric so they can use network effects to surveil you sell your personal relationships back to you. They bought up Instagram and WhatsApp to the same end, then Oculus. Even Carmack fell for the lie. Meta never wants you talking to anyone in any medium without them knowing about it, because it allows them to sell more and more ads, because nobody is going to give up communications with their friends and family.

It's not that complicated. Most people just go where the other users are. They "have nothing to hide". Their thoughtless decisions actively make society worse for everyone else, one user at a time. Even tech people who know the scam throw up their hands and express how impossible it would be to get their kids' soccer parents or PTA groups to abandon WhatsApp groups or FB Messenger for something privacy-respecting. The tyranny of the installed base.

Go to a place that didn't have deliberate large scale society-wide anti-smoking programs. Basically everyone starts smoking at age 15 and never stops. People regularly and typically, en masse, work against their own interests in ways that seem like "not a big deal".

Suddenly, you can't make a doctor's appointment in Europe without a WhatsApp account (and agreeing to the Meta ToS in the process). (Why Europe casually ceded the basic day to day communications of many of its b2c sectors to an American company without so much as a fight is another matter.)

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

#658

Post by OrangeMusic »

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?

Why would they disallow cameras on glasses but not cameras on phones, where it's just as easy to take pictures discreetly.

Not to mention, hidden miniature cameras have existed for decades.

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

#659

Post by pbmonster »

Interesting article, but I wonder why the journalists didn't go all the way. Sure, Meta isn't going to comment when you ask them what data they have. But this is in the EU, just hit them with a Subject Access Request under GDPR.

Would be really interesting to create a completely new account, use the glasses with all upload settings off for a month, and then SAR request and see what they have...

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

#660

Post by OrangeMusic »

randycupertino wrote: post #573
arcadianalpaca wrote: post #568

The recording light argument keeps coming up but I don't buy it. I can't tell if someone's glasses have a tiny LED on from across a room, and neither can anyone else.Under GDPR it's a on Meta to handle consent, not on me to squint at someone's face to figure out if I'm being filmed.

Also creeps can just easily search to see how to disable the light anyways.

This argument is invalid. Creeps exist, and if they want to discreetly film stuff, they have many great options (hidden miniature cameras).

In fact why on earth would they choose the Ray Ban glasses which are getting highly suspicious?

Post reply on HN