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

711–720 of 870 posts

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

#711

Post by shinycode »

OrangeMusic wrote: post #658
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?

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.

Discreet is not the same thing as embedded in your face with no hands involved and indiscernible from regular glasses.

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

#712

Post by dmschulman »

RobotToaster wrote: post #552
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?

Google glass was more a victim of it's time, normies weren't used to everyone carrying a camera everywhere back then.

Google Glass failed because they made the user look like they were wearing a high tech computer on their face ala Dragon Ball Z. It looked odd. Meta and Snap learned from this, but it had nothing to do with smartphone cameras not being part of daily life.

The first iPhone was 2007. Google Glass came out in 2013

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

#713

Post by ricardobeat »

shevy-java wrote: post #683
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.

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?

The device detects that the light has been covered, and prevents recording.

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

#714

Post by Gooblebrai »

ElProlactin wrote: post #687
drawnwren wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 feelin…

> his pre-wealth behavior gives insight into who he really is

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."

Not defending Zuck but it reflects a rigid mindset to assume that people cannot change.

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

#715

Post by AlienRobot »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #188
AlienRobot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the frog is boiling and some people already think that "in public" means "it's okay to record people and post it on the Internet."

In the US, at least, it's pretty much legal to record the public as long as people have no expectation of privacy (IANAL, exclusions apply, non-commercial use, etc) It's difficult to draw a bright line between these activities: - I told someone else something I saw the other day - I painted a picture of the public square or wrote a book about specific activities that I witnessed - I specifically remembered an individ…

It's not a legal problem but a cultural one. Piracy, for example, is already illegal, but everyone does it.

Smartphones and social media apps made it frictionless to post public videos on the Internet. The only legislation that could be effective would be to forbid social media from hosting videos of public places somehow, and I'm not sure how effective or practical would that even be.

We live in a world where people have a literal phone in their hands and they would rather make a video call than a simple phone call. Something needs to happen to fundamentally change people's habits or it will only get worse in the future.

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

#716

Post by ethbr1 »

weli wrote: post #695
weli wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> The privacy led light could just turn off for a couple of milliseconds (or less) while the light sensor performs its check. True but then that would mean a blinking led light instead of a constant turned on led light, which is a different product requirement from what it currently does.

Parent's point was that you can likely do it at a high enough frequency that blinking would be imperceivable by the human eye.

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

#717

Post by NekkoDroid »

weli wrote: post #695
weli wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> The privacy led light could just turn off for a couple of milliseconds (or less) while the light sensor performs its check. True but then that would mean a blinking led light instead of a constant turned on led light, which is a different product requirement from what it currently does.

I feel like it was pretty common to have the red light blinking on and off every second when recording. In that time where it is off during that cycle it would make sense to preform the sensor checks.

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

#718

Post by numpad0 »

rationalist wrote: post #184
numpad0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laser engravers. Blu-ray drive laser modules are dime a dozen and are plenty powerful.

Can I get a pair of camera glasses that uses AI to identify other camera glasses, and controls a moveable laser to blast the cameras on the other glasses?

You'll need much better high-speed cameras than on existing glasses, and a really good beam steering mechanism coupled with much better laser than Blu-ray diodes. It'll be heavier than most VR goggles and very finicky. I don't even know which ones of fixed camera with a dual polygonal or standard 2-axis galvos or prism based PTZ with the camera doing classical lock-on and trained laser shooting from the opposite side of the camera. It's a >$50k project at benchtop static PoC level.

Put aside everything unethical and unworkable about it. Probably cheaper to lobby for a think-about-kids camera ban for products weighing less than 250g or contains transparent window apparatus that may or may not be curved in diameters larger than 10mm for fire risks or something.

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

#719

Post by ethbr1 »

edgyquant wrote: post #710
ElProlactin wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 feelin…

It doesn’t though, no one is the same person they were 20 years ago and every young person is makes a ton of mistakes

You're suggesting a ton of money and power made Zuckerberg more empathetic?

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

#720

Post by chucksmash »

greentea23 wrote: post #519
chwahoo wrote: post #271

I'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Sh…

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.

Non-consensual? Abuse?

The terminology you chose is tasteless, loaded, and detracts from your point.

Post reply on HN