Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 280 posts

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#71

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

andybak wrote: post #31
wombat-man wrote: post #4

I hope one of these companies pulls off a compelling set of glasses with a display and no camera.

It won't matter. People will assume it has a camera. The product category is most likely (and rather predictably) dead if it depends on people wearing them ubiquitously and in public.

Which will be incredibly problematic if the manufacturers continue to aim for something unobtrusive. Eventually, just normal spectacle wearers will be the targets of mistrust and, unfortunately, worse.

I do think that people should be legally allowed to make recordings in public, provided they are not harassing anyone. I do not think they are entitled to make those recordings in secret; just have a regulated indicator, like the bluetooth led.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#72

Post by ear7h »

gopalv wrote: post #51
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.

> notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it. The core problem of solitude is curiosity and sonder. When I smell fennel on a hike, I want to know what it is - yeah, this is dog fennel. When I see a strange symbol on a taxi car, I want to know why it is 3 arrows on bow and what that is. Seeing a strange dog and wondering what kind of dog that is (a whippet?). A glimpse of a black bird with red shoulder pa…

Curiousity is characterized by the pursuit for the answer, not the ability or speed to find the answer. You can still be curious without a google search bar, and I often find those pursuits are (1) much more rewarding and (2) stick around enough to become knowledge.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#73

Post by dgellow »

rdmuser wrote: post #26

Our idea of a public/private privacy division where private recording is discouraged and public is a free for all really feels dated. I know personally I'd love to see a private/local/wide distribution division or something like that where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net. There are real harms to being a public figure and the net rarely understa…

Germany makes a distinction between expectations of privacy and being in a public space. If you’re in a cafe and talking to someone at your table, you generally do not expect others to participate and listen to your conversation, that can be enough to be considered private and would likely be illegal to record without consent. The act of recording audio is in itself restricted, though if you share you can have additional charges. I’m pretty sure that makes always-on video recording (with audio) very much incompatible with German laws.

It’s an ok system but too restrictive and outdated IMHO, so many people recording something with their phone will unwillingly record people passing by, which is likely not allowed.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#74

Post by abirch »

hn_submit wrote: post #58

Why is Meta insisting on forcing these "pervert" glasses on us? I can tell you why: advertising. I bet some "pervert" within Meta (may Zuck himself) has already thought up that whatever you look at will result in you getting an ad for that item. "I see you're looking at a car. How about this new Toyota RAV4?" "I see you're looking at a mobile phone. How about this new Samsung Galaxy Fold which is on sale." "I see you…

If someone signs in and gives up their privacy, I don't care. Where I do care is when someone with their pervert glasses captures an image of me at my kid's little league game and now I'm getting ads based on that.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#76

Post by shimman »

joemi wrote: post #64
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want this? I honestly think we’ve completely forgotten how to be present and notice the real world without the idea of augmenting it.

I'm not the person that you're replying to, but: It can be less intrusive than using a phone, I believe. That makes it a step closer to being present. (I don't know specifics, but I'm assuming that the display can be turned off when not in use.) Also, if someone already wears glasses, why not have glasses that can do more?

You don't need a phone either and sorry but the idea of someone using a device to learn things about me that I did not share with them is frankly disgusting and dehumanizing.

You can simply talk to people, we don't have to enable your perversions because you refuse to interact with humans.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#78

Post by freejazz »

miladyincontrol wrote: post #2

I do think its a bit odd to automatically and "obviously" default to the idea that people will be using these to be perverts. Its a bit strange of a default assumption to me. Although its even more disheartening that most people's reactions to just about anything these days is dread about how it'll make their lives worse without fail.

> Its a bit strange of a default assumption to me

You come off as naive.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#79

Post by dylan604 »

andybak wrote: post #62
dylan604 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of copyright and other rights management that can be applied. Many buildings are copyrighted. If you take a picture of a building, which you are free to do, you cannot make money from that image just because you took it while being in the open public. The same should be applicable to people as well. Yes, you took a picture of them while in public, but they people still own the rights to the likeness. If…

> Many buildings are copyrighted Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.

Nope, can't stop right there. It is the situation we live in now. You can release a product like a poster or puzzle or whatever and try to YOLO with your protest, but you will lose in court when you are sued by the rights holder.

There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do with the image, so they have no legal basis to prevent someone from taking the picture.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#80

Post by willtemperley »

abirch wrote: post #55
zamadatix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The glasses & software could have come from the Linux Foundation & the same concerns from people would remain.

Probably different concerns. If you had a home video and I was in the background I wouldn't care. The odds of anyone recognizing me would be low. If you upload it to anyone using mass AI (YouTube, Meta, etc.) then I care a lot.

I suspect you're not a pretty girl that gets stared at. Neither am I, but if I were I'd rather the stares weren't recordable.
Post reply on HN