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

721–730 of 870 posts

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

#721

Post by lazide »

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…

People absolutely will (and are) modding them to hide that light. But even if they weren’t, a lot of people won’t notice.

And regardless of any privacy policy or the like, you still have to worry about Room 641A scenarios [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A].

Can you imaging a Stasi that has a large portion of the population also wearing pervasive surveillance tech? Amazing!

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

#722

Post by lazide »

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.…

Sounds like it would be pretty easy to fake out with a custom circuit too, for those that are willing to go beyond ‘whoops how did that happen’ levels.

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

#723

Post by cmiles74 »

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…

This was one of the first hits on Kagi. 404 has a similar article (I think) but it's behind a paywall.

"The demand for this ‘Ray-Ban hack’ has been steadily increasing, with the hobbyist’s waiting list growing longer by the day. This demonstrates a clear desire among Ray-Ban owners to exercise more control over their privacy and mitigate concerns about unknowingly recording others."

https://bytetrending.com/2025/10/28/ray-ban-hack-disabling-t...

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

#724

Post by cmiles74 »

losvedir wrote: post #208
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…

Agreed. I'm confused trying to map what the article is saying to what's happening at a technical level. For example, obviously it's not doing on-device inference, so it's unsurprising that it won't work without a network connection, but this is totally distinct from your recordings ending up getting labeled. It talks about being able to opt into that, which is one thing. But I guess I don't understand if you don't op…

My reading was that as soon as you enable the "AI" functionality you are opted into having your recordings labeled.

"But for the AI assistant to function, voice, text, image and sometimes video must be processed and may be shared onwards. This data processing is done automatically and cannot be turned off."

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

#725

Post by [deleted] »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #76
blakesterz wrote: post #29

Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.co…

Why is it always this accusatory “while you were distracted”-style rhetoric? Who has been distracted from Facebook’s shenanigans? Who are they talking about? Is it me? Because I can tell you I have certainly not been distracted on that front. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Am I supposed to hold somebody accountable who should’ve been paying attention? I do actually understand why it’s done, but I just find it very gra…

[deleted]

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

#726

Post by cmiles74 »

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"?

The article isn't clear on this point, I believe because Meta isn't clear on this themselves. Other bits of this piece highlight third parties reviewing the responses of the AI assistant; it's possible that people are recording and some sound they make triggers the AI assistant which, in turn, leads to the video being reviewed.

OTOH, Meta could just be desperate for training content and they're just slurping up all recordings by people who've opted into the AI function. It would be great for them to clarify how this works.

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

#728

Post by 542354234235 »

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.

I've tried to learn and grow from the stupid comments of my youth. I haven't been involved in a long list of scandals directly related to the ideas those comments expressed, and if I was, it would be pretty clear that I didn't learn or grow at all.

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

#730

Post by rsynnott »

jim33442 wrote: post #348
rbtprograms wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i actually agree with this take; i dont see the problem that smart glasses solve. what, my phone screen isnt literally in front of my eyeballs 24/7? i have a need to be absolutely plugged into scrolling social media and consuming content so much that i just have to have the screen in my glasses? this feels much more like what tech companies want people to want rather than what people want.

Wasn't the point of smart watches to have something even more readily accessible than a phone? I'd never want one of those dorky things, but they sell

While that may have been the original motivator, they have largely settled into a niche as a sort of fitness sensor. People do not typically use apps on them.
Post reply on HN