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

741–750 of 870 posts

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

#741

Post by kstrauser »

echelon wrote: post #544
greentea23 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

I’ve banned them from our office, for the same reason that I’d tell someone deliberately aiming their phone camera at the screen all day to knock it off. In an office setting, you have to treat these as industrial espionage tools, either by choice of the wearer or of a remote person controlling them.

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

#742

Post by trashb »

whyoh wrote: post #669
consp wrote: post #622

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.

Yes, actually the AVG (GDPR) is very broad in what it considers personal data.

Sadly that means it is not enforced well since it is too broad to be enforced in a meaningful way. And therefore it is violated A LOT, both by companies or people since no one can be bothered!

AVG (GDPR) includes the following things as personal data: name, address, phone number, passport photo, information about someone's behavior on websites, allergies, customer or staff numbers, recognizable recordings and more.

Rule of thumb, any information that can be used to relate a specific person.

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

#743

Post by 542354234235 »

jmye wrote: post #356
juleiie wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah in any case it will end badly for you if not the first time then eventually. Who lives by the sword dies by the sword. It just takes one unlucky time where the other person doesn’t subscribe to the idea of proportional response or has military training with muscle memory that takes over.

It’s weird how y’all are so desperate to catastrophize responses, and then want to call other people “internet badasses”. Look in the mirror next time you tell someone they’re going to get shot, bud. You’re the problem.

It doesn’t seem like catastrophizing when discussing how people might react to a stranger attacking them. Hitting someone in the face hard enough to knock off their glasses isn’t exactly some silly little thing that people would be ridiculous to respond to. It is an attack and people would likely perceive it as such. Plenty of people would just be stunned and do nothing, but plenty of people carry and go to the range every weekend just waiting for someone to try something.

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

#744

Post by 542354234235 »

dylan604 wrote: post #339
skillina wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends what your threat model is, but this will literally turn you into a glowing signal that says "hey, look at me!" Your face might be protected but anyone manually reviewing security footage will be paying way more attention.

When did we change the subject from fucking the Meta to hiding from security cameras?

Meta isn't the only camera that might be pointed at you at any given time.

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

#745

Post by rubzah »

amszmidt wrote: post #572
jspdown wrote: post #557

Don't you need to obtain consent before filming random people in the street? I already feel uncomfortable when someone takes a photo in public and I happen to be in it, but this type of device takes things to an entirely different level. With smart glasses, there's no visible cue that you're being recorded. No phone held up, no camera in sight. I'm questioning the legality of this in Europe, where privacy laws tend t…

In Sweden, you're allowed to film/photograph in public without the need for any consent. There is (in general) no expectation of privacy in public in Europe. How you can use the material though, is a different matter ...

An important distinction is that you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it (so the glasses do belong in that category). You're not allowed to set up a camera to autonomously film/photograph outside of your own private property.

Besides that there is the issue of publishing said footage, as others point out.

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

#746

Post by weli »

ethbr1 wrote: post #716
weli wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think the cheap light sensor would have a fast enough polling rate for that. And if you increase the polling rate I will just put a phosphorescent sticker that absorbs and reflects the light coming out of the led with a good enough afterglow that the photoresistor will still pick up as some value and still allow for recording.

Also what is the implication here? If you cover the hole accidentally for one microsecond do you invalidate the whole recording? Does it need to be covered for more than one second, two seconds, ten?

All of that for what? So that in 2 years we can have chinese off-brand clones for 50 dollars that offer no security mechanisms anyways?

We all need to understand this is the new normal, being able to be recorded anywhere anytime. Just like you can get punched in the street anywhere anytime. We only act on things that can be proven to have caused you prejudice in court.

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

#748

Post by alkonaut »

rodwyersoftware wrote: post #673
alkonaut wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something created/accepted as a reasonable state of affairs simply because no one could imagine the resources needed to record and track every person everywhere (Or, we could - but it was fiction). Being in public was considered seen by others. Perhaps an occasional photo being taken. Perhaps the old ideas that "you have no privacy in public" or "if you can be seen then you can be recorded" and so on just need…

Better to worry about the Africans running around raping our European women rather than if someone is recording you for 5 seconds while walking your dog.

Did you make a wrong turn? /r/asshat is over there ->

You posted a message in "Who wants to be hired" at almost the same time as you posted this. Do you think a potential recruiter would read your comment history?

Sigh

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

#749

Post by tim333 »

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.

Probably the majority of the planet share family photos on facebook, messenger, whatsapp or instagram - all meta properties. On the whole nothing much bad happens.

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

#750

Post by rubzah »

tene80i wrote: post #581
fabbbbb wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the chain of reasoning that brought you to this conclusion?

That's quite an antagonistic way to request an explanation, particularly as it seems straightforward: If you needed consent to film people in the street, security cameras (in public places) couldn't be used. They _are_ used. So it must not be the case that you need consent to film people in the street. Assuming there is not just widespread lawbreaking, I suppose.

The difference is if you are actively filming, or the camera is set up to film by itself. Security cameras are in the latter category and therefore can only be used on your own property (you can allow someone else to do it on your own property, such as a security firm).
Post reply on HN