I am confused that people act so offended. What do people expect? Meta and all tech companies do not believe in privacy for anyone but themselves. Isn't our info how they make their money?
Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
761–770 of 870 posts
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#762[dead]
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#763Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I really don't care. I am a free man
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#764Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do blind people not care about data privacy? Most likely they do and should ask for good TOS now while still possible.
Blind user here. Reality is, we are so disadvantaged in this world that we will gladly accept any tool that is useful. Almost nobody would ever read the TOS. Its a bit like with cars... Sure, there are some urban exceptions, but truth is, if you ask someone to give up their car, they will laugh you out the door.
I'm sorry that you are in this predicament. Many rely on these tools. When something finally works, few are going to walk away because of a long terms of service most of us will never read. That doesn't mean you don't care about privacy though, it just means you are forced into a tradeoff.
With AI glasses like the ones Meta is pushing, the device is not just helping you. It is recording. Photos and videos can be sent back to company servers. Reports show that human reviewers can see very private footage users never meant to share. That includes sensitive personal moments. The device is basically an always-on camera tied to a giant data company.
If you depend on that device to understand the world, that makes you more vulnerable, not less. If ads, errors, or AI hallucinations start shaping what you hear about your surroundings, that affects your only channel of perception. If your daily life is constantly captured and stored, that affects your autonomy.
So yes, many of us will still use the tech. But that is exactly why pushing for strong, clear privacy terms now matters. Accessibility should not mean giving up control over your own life.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#765Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it
Does it really count as "actively doing it" when the glasses are constantly filming while you do other stuff. With a phone/camera people can see you are filming or taking pictures. In many countries the shutter needs to make a sound when taking pictures. For video surveilance cameras a noticeable sign or sticker is needed.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#766Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually useful AR needs cameras, of course, so the technology has legitimate use cases, but you'd have to be a real asshole to wear them to a bar, or a restaurant, etc. Maybe we mandate that the glasses have to have a base station dongle, and if they're more than 10 feet from the dongle, recording doesn't work without incredibly obvious annoying lights indicating that recording is on? A cultural convention that lets…
Maybe if we weigh legitimate use cases against privacy and end up deciding that the privacy is more important, then we just don't accept those use cases? That is: we invent new awesome life-changing technology and we just... don't use it? Like we could have navigational AR-glasses. The wearer sees arrows on the floor where to walk. And we could choose to not let anyone wear them in public even though what they do is…
Part of it is civics. You have the right to record in public. Being in a public space means you are consenting to being recorded; it's in public. It's not always moral, classy, correct, or good, but the alternative is the erosion of the principles of free press, freedom of expression, etc.
The form factor of the camera doesn't matter. We do have different constraints, but those are pretty solidly filled out in case law. I don't believe making recording glasses illegal to wear in public would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Mandating a visible notification with a conventional color, signaling things like "on" "passive" and "recording" would be constitutional and wouldn't infringe. That said, surreptitious use would likely be legal, e.g. aftermarket modification to allow recording with no lights; first amendment issues have a high bar and all sorts of secret camera precedents being legal. This is how corrupt politicians and cops and officials get caught, all the time, and it's highly unlikely to be smart glasses that gets the people and courts to flip on 1A.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#767Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slapping a pair of glasses that are recording you, processing your face, sending biometrics and images back to one of the worst privacy offenders on the planet off of the face of someone who is willingly doing all that without asking your permission is a perfectly appropriate reaction. Put your shoulder into it. I'd rather we normalize that than adversarial fashion.. but that's probably what you were looking for.
While I'd like to agree with you, and do in some cases, there are many cases where this just isn't a feasible approach. For example, a peer coworker has a pair of these. I just don't interact with her while she is wearing them. If my boss were to get a pair there is no way I can justify slapping them off his face.
Have you tried bringing it up with HR? If you explain why you try to avoid her while she's wearing them, they might ask her to stop wearing them to work.
Meta's own guidelines[1] say that you should "Power off in private spaces."
You can't always tell if you're being recorded since they can be tampered with to disable the LED. And from what I gather, the LED only serves to indicate of video recording, and not necessarily audio.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#768Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe if we weigh legitimate use cases against privacy and end up deciding that the privacy is more important, then we just don't accept those use cases? That is: we invent new awesome life-changing technology and we just... don't use it? Like we could have navigational AR-glasses. The wearer sees arrows on the floor where to walk. And we could choose to not let anyone wear them in public even though what they do is…
Part of it is civics. You have the right to record in public. Being in a public space means you are consenting to being recorded; it's in public. It's not always moral, classy, correct, or good, but the alternative is the erosion of the principles of free press, freedom of expression, etc. The form factor of the camera doesn't matter. We do have different constraints, but those are pretty solidly filled out in case l…
[dead]
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#769To their credit, all interesting consumer tech introduces privacy concerns because to do interesting things you usually have to integrate tightly with someone's life. I'm just not that concerned about filming sunglasses, in fact I'm kind of excited
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#770Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>The other issue, that Facebook was running a silent audio stream in the background, is also called out. Grant says this was unintentional, and that it was not being used to keep the app alive — yet it did as a byproduct of the bug. How much issue tracking and scrum management and engineering work and code review and testing and deployment and maintenance went into accidentally streaming silent audio that you only st…
I was just reading a comment on HN yesterday about how MacOS had so many bugs. I guess they don't have issue tracking, scrum management, engineering work, code review, testing, deployment, and maintenance either.
I hate FB, but not everything is always a sinister plan, although this could have been. I will repeat: "with Facebook, who knows."