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

661–670 of 870 posts

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

#661

Post by alpineman »

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?

Yep, that's why I refuse to give Whatsapp (and when I still used them, Instagram and Messenger), full access to my Camera reel.

For some reason they keep asking aggressively for permission for the whole thing. I wonder why...

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

#662

Post by NekkoDroid »

Sebguer wrote: post #656
qnleigh wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> my understanding is that the light is resistant to simply taping over it, and recording can't happen in this case.

I remember when the glasses came out and this was tested: if you tape it over before starting the recording it refuses, but if you tape it after starting it will happily continue to record. I don't know if they changed it, but that is how it use to be.

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

#663

Post by DonHopkins »

DavidPiper wrote: post #445

Ah yes, while everyone was focused on Flock cameras... For many more reasons than pervert behaviour, I agree that this kind of tool cannot coexist with healthy society. "Glassholes" was a delightful portmanteau, but I suspect normalising a term like "pedo glasses" will probably put people off them way sooner and faster. At the very least it identifies the product and not the person as the problem.

Trump-Epstein Glasses

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

#664

Post by DonHopkins »

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.

Not as self-damning as you trying to defend what he said 20 years ago, with full knowledge of how he's acted in those intervening 20 years.

Congratulations, you've just smeared yourself with your own contemporary words.

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

#666

Post by [deleted] »

Sabinus wrote: post #502
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…

If you're not paying a subscription for Meta to AI process your audio and video then they're going to get value out of it some way. It's just like any other 'free' digital service

[deleted]

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

#667

Post by DonHopkins »

pembrook wrote: post #630
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…

Now if only we could look up everything you said in chatrooms as a 19 year old and post the most inflammatory stuff on HN. I’m sure you’ve never said anything callous or snarky, and were a bastion of morality as a teenager.

[flagged]

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

#668

Post by juleiie »

achierius wrote: post #401
quantified wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First wearers are more likely to have a concealed carry. They have the money, and are from the right demographics.

Shooting someone for breaking your glasses would be an act of murder. Even shooting someone for slapping you in the face would be an act of murder. Clearly you don't have experience with firearms or the legislation around them, or you would be aware of this.

I am sure there will be plenty of time for legal musings after the funeral. You could watch trial from above if afterlife exists and has good internet connection

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

#669

Post by whyoh »

consp wrote: post #622
amszmidt wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...

In a general rule you can record. But sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party. There is also the difference of recording a public place with people in the background and clearly recording someone: The first is fine, the second is not (without consent). You also cannot disable the recording light, doing so would put you up for l…

>sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party.

Wouldn't that make "photo cloud backups" without consent illegal as well?

People do that all the time, sending private photos to Google, Apple etc.

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

#670

Post by chokma »

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #629
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…

Filming vs. Publishing Filming is legal. In public spaces (streets, parks), there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." You do not need permission to point a camera. The exceptions are usually for offensive or harassing type of filming. Publishing is regulated. In EU, once you share the footage , you are "processing personal data" under GDPR. There are also exceptions where publishing without permission is legal…

Note that there is a difference between Panoramafreiheit (freedom to record a public building / space with people walking around) versus recording the street before your house with an always-on security camera (almost always forbidden).

Even having a fake camera pointing at a public space can be forbidden as it creates surveilance pressure on people using the space.

Post reply on HN