731–740 of 870 posts
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.
Why in the world did they even try this again? What market is there for it beyond creeps? Or is that the hot thing right now?
And despite this, there is no strong will to detach from what they produce - in the beginning or later when it is considered like cultural fabric. That’s how good their tactics is.
And for the pay one gets working for them - screw the world! I won’t use it anywhere near my loved ones - but will build it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember when facebook was busted playing silent audio so the app could stay active in the background? I honestly don't think there's a company I trust less than facebook/meta. And it's because the rot is at the top, and has always been there.
No. I did a search and found this though: https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/22/facebook-says-it-fixed-a-b... Supposedly it was a bug, but with Facebook, who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 allegation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a general rule you can record. But sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party. There is also the difference of recording a public place with people in the background and clearly recording someone: The first is fine, the second is not (without consent). You also cannot disable the recording light, doing so would put you up for l…
>sending it to Meta AI would be a AVG (GDPR) violation in the Netherlands if no consent is given as you share it with a third party. Wouldn't that make "photo cloud backups" without consent illegal as well? People do that all the time, sending private photos to Google, Apple etc.
If it transpired Google or Apple had staff looking through people's cloud photo backups, yes this would be considered a violation because "cloud backup" is framed as a personal solution and not a hosting or processing solution.
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.
There is a world, because when the displays are high quality and they're thinner and lighter, they're going to replace phones, and almost everyone will be wearing them.