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

681–690 of 870 posts

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

#681

Post by shevy-java »

Well - don't wear their spyglasses. It's really not that hard.

You can still record stuff without spyglasses. People do that on youtube too, e. g. first amendment audits. It's not that different to the spyglasses, except that you can cut off Meta from the process (admittedly youtube creates another problem which is called Google; it would be nice if we could have platforms without corporate overlord, but the financial aspect may still be an issue that requires solving. I don't have a good way to solve that, as I am also having a 100% zero ads policy aka using ublock origin mandatorily. And Google declared total war againts ublock origin, we all know that.)

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

#682

Post by shevy-java »

gverrilla wrote: post #680

Usage of creep-ware won't be tolerated in the social groups I take part on. We will shame hard anyone who uses this sh1t.

Understandable, and not disagreeing per se, though hard-shaming is a strange strategy. But, ignoring this, people record videos and upload on youtube. While this is not quite the same as Meta-spy-glasses where people work for Suckerburg suddenly, people still upload videos on youtube, instagram etc... - is that very different to the spyglass? I think it is not that different, viewed more objectively. It's not the same, granted, but also not that different.

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

#683

Post by shevy-java »

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.

Taping can not be done? But if there are guides on the www for this, is this a true statement? To me it is a difficult statement because ... taping can be done in many ways. I don't see how light can magically pass through it?

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

#684

Post by gverrilla »

NalNezumi wrote: post #138

I sincerely hope someone in Japan or Korea get caught using those to peek under trousers on the train so it get the forced camera sound treatment of smartphones over there. So the world can label them as Hentai glasses and move on

Incel glasses sounds better imo.

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

#685

Post by shevy-java »

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"?

I am very much confused. People recorded sex way before the meta-spy-glasses.

I mean, not as if I were to visit such sites, right ... but video recordings can be done in numerous ways. Also on small devices. I mean the smartphones are fairly small.

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

#686

Post by GJim »

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…

> There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening

This is why WE have the GDPR. To outlaw and prevent exploitation such as this.

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

#687

Post by ElProlactin »

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.

It's not "smearing" to use Zuckerberg's own words in a discussion of his character, and this is far from the only example of things he's done or said in the past 20 years that would lead a reasonable person to call into question his moral fiber.

It remains, however, a popular point of reference because:

1. It's fast and easy to read and digest.

2. The blunt language leaves little room for speculation about his feelings and intent at the time.

3. A lot of people understand that as Zuckerberg's wealth exploded, he surrounded himself with people (coaches, stylists, PR professionals, etc.) who are paid handsomely to rehabilitate and manage his image. Therefore, his pre-wealth behavior gives insight into who he really is.

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

#688

Post by mofeien »

weli wrote: post #674
NekkoDroid wrote: post #662

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. 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,

The privacy led light could just turn off for a couple of milliseconds (or less) while the light sensor performs its check.

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

#689

Post by palata »

twodave wrote: post #349
palata wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you think that "being able to track leadership of a country that knows that other countries may want to target them" does not mean "being able to track pretty much anyone"? Or do you think that those cameras are less secure because the leadership is not good with their people? I'm not sure I follow the criticism here.

I thought I stated my position pretty clearly. This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument. Whether you agree or disagree with the thesis, I think we can all agree that’s a stupid way to make the point. But perhaps you just aren’t willing to have a genuine discussion.

You are the one nitpicking about the argument ("I agree with your point, but I will just complain about your example"), so don't be surprised if you get answers :-).

> This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument.

Not quite, no. It is saying "If even those people who benefit from their national security can be tracked by an actor that does not own the cameras, it means that anyone can be tracked by those cameras. Do we want foreign actors to be able to track anyone in the country, even the leadership?".

It actually makes a stronger point than "normal people who gladly share all their data can be tracked", and even stronger than "a journalist taking care not to be tracked can still be tracked". Here we have the leadership of a country that knows that they are targets, who therefore benefit from national security. And they can still be tracked.

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

#690

Post by pembrook »

DonHopkins wrote: post #667
pembrook wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Hilarious.

Before you posted this I actually edited my comment to remove a sentence at the end where I said "Now please proceed to call me a bootlicker while not rebutting my point."

I thought it would be too flame-war-y. Guess it was actually needed however! US politics getting hysterical has been like the eternal semptember for HN. This place is so braindead and predictable and uninteresting now.

Post reply on HN