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

671–680 of 870 posts

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

#671

Post by phyrex »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #639
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'm going to guess that people are intentionally recording themselves having sex, assuming that they are creating a local recording that is not sent to Meta. Does the light mean "camera is recording" or "cloud services are involved"?

Camera is recording/taking a picture

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

#672

Post by egorfine »

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…

> Don't you need to obtain consent

Different laws in different countries.

> before filming random people in the street?

That would make taking pictures impossible, so no, such a requirement cannot be reasonably() codified into law.

() By reasonably I mean in a way to be actually followed. Of course there are lots of impossible laws created by politicians to cater to their fan base.

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

#673

Post by rodwyersoftware »

alkonaut wrote: post #624
rodwyersoftware wrote: post #621

If you're in public you have no privacy by default.

That's something created/accepted as a reasonable state of affairs simply because no one could imagine the resources needed to record and track every person everywhere (Or, we could - but it was fiction). Being in public was considered seen by others. Perhaps an occasional photo being taken. Perhaps the old ideas that "you have no privacy in public" or "if you can be seen then you can be recorded" and so on just need…

Better to worry about the Africans running around raping our European women rather than if someone is recording you for 5 seconds while walking your dog.

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

#674

Post by weli »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #662
Sebguer wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still works like that.

The glasses have in the same hole a led light and a small light sensor (similar to the ones used in monitors to set up auto-brightness).

On start recording the glasses check if the light sensor is above a certain threshold, if it is then it starts recording and turns on the led light.

So, if you start recording and then cover the hole, it keeps recording because the check only happens on start. Even if they wanted to fix this by making the light sensor do a constant check it wouldn't work as the privacy led light indicator is triggering the same sensor, which is a terrible design choice.

And to disable the light is as easy as using a small drill bit and breaking either the light sensor module or the led light. They can detect if it's been tampered with and they put a giant notice saying the privacy light is not working but they still let you record anyways lol.

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

#675

Post by designerarvid »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #115
MerrimanInd wrote: post #17

I was in engineering school back in ~2012 when Google Glass came out. One of my classmates got hold of a pair when they were still quite uncommon and wore them to an extracurricular club meeting. Within minutes someone made a comment about him wearing the "creeper" glasses and asked if he was filming. He never wore them to the club again. I just don't see a world where that doesn't happen with Meta glasses.

An entire new generation of people have been born and raised into a world that is more accepting of always recording and being recorded since 14 years ago.

In Sweden, kids have stopped showering after PE class due to this concern.

The world is not deterministic, and we can shape norms of how we interact with each other. We don't have to accept being constantly recorded just because the technology makes it possible.

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

#676

Post by DonHopkins »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #643
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?

> 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.

Are you suggesting Robert Scoble's PR company was working on behalf of the competition?

Larry Page on Robert Scoble’s Google Glass stunt: ‘I really didn’t appreciate the shower photo’:

https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4333656/larry-page-teases...

Perhaps his PR company business venture he tastelessly plugged in his sexual harassment non-apology-apology?

Scoble: an utterly tone deaf response to harassment allegations:

https://onemanandhisblog.com/2017/10/scoble-utterly-tone-dea...

>The Verge‘s Adi Robertson sums it us thus:

>>But his latest defense puts forward an absurd definition of sexual harassment and effectively accuses women of reporting it to fit in with the cool crowd, while claiming he’s writing in “a spirit of healing.” There’s even a tasteless plug for his latest business venture. It’s one of the most disappointing responses we’ve seen to a sexual harassment complaint, which, after the past few weeks, is a fairly remarkable achievement.

He's scrubbed it from his blog and even Internet Archive, but it was well covered and widely quoted all over:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16547332/robert-scoble-s...

https://www.theregister.com/2017/10/25/robert_scoble_latest/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/uploadvr-has-a-big-sexual-h...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/robert-scoble-i-...

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/10/178458/sexual-haras...

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/10/25/robert-sc...

https://slate.com/technology/2017/10/robert-scobles-blog-pos...

https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/robert-scoble-define...

I think you're on to something! Maybe Meta paid Scoble to embarrass Google Glass, and now Google is paying him to embarrass Meta AI Smart Glasses too! Great work if you can get somebody to finance your serial sexual harassment scandals.

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

#677

Post by monero-xmr »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #518
monero-xmr wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I can't even guess what you think is racist in what I said about voting. And listen, I'm all for requiring IDs if we make sure 99.999% of people have an ID first . But actual decisions must be made based on the actual situation. We're not even to 99% right now.

[dead]

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

#678

Post by juleiie »

diath wrote: post #369
juleiie wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is trolling at best. If you touch a wrong person, you will not live to tell the tale. People aren’t some NPC in a video game my friend. This isn’t a movie. Even I, average looking girl, walk with a knife everywhere and I am trained how to use it to kill, it’s muscle memory. In US, a lot of people stroll around with guns.

> Even I, average looking girl, walk with a knife everywhere and I am trained how to use it to kill I can guarantee you that if you ever end up getting sucker punched by an adult male, you will at best get dazed and not know what's going on, and at worst knocked out cold. The knife is giving you a false illusion of safety. It would only ever be really effective if you were the attacker that pulled out the knife on a…

Yeah you really have to make sure you do not miss, the punch doesn’t glance off, and has enough power to knock out the meta glass wearer in one go.

There is still the footage question though, probably saved live to the cloud.

That’s a lot of things to go as expected and a lot of unavoidable trouble anyway.

It’s just such a stupid idea to go around punching people. It gets you in trouble, it gets the defender in trouble if their training/emotion/nastiness takes over and they do severe harm to you.

You better make sure to knock someone out in one go and then what go to jail if they die?

I didn’t expect this amount of stupidity here

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

#679

Post by zmgsabst »

juleiie wrote: post #668
achierius wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Okay — but it’s effective:

Now the discussion is about how Facebook glasses are offensive and worn by murderous psychos who take creep shots of their neighbors.

Post reply on HN