Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why is that rellevant?
Obviously, the implication was that of course nobody's filming that person, they're just using their phone. Thinking otherwise is not reasonable.
Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
781–790 of 870 posts
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#782Earlier 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?
The youths literally do not care from what I observe. How many people under 25 do you interact with on a day to day basis?
On the other hand, EVERY young person in my circle (my kids and their friends) is insanely privacy aware. All of that means ... we're not part of the young people anymore?
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#783I'm not sure if there is any use case that could convince me to mount an internet connected device to my head at all times.
Doesn't matter when everybody around you has one.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#784Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
People using hidden miniature cameras should be shamed and punished when that is discovered just like the people using these glasses.
All right here's my position:
- filming people without their consent is wrong
- the vast majority of people are not creeps and are not discreetly filming random people
- the vast majority of people are not interesting, and nobody is filming them
- today, in a public space, everybody already has lots or cameras pointing to them (e.g. anyone with a phone), without a way to know if they're being filmed. So this is not a new 'problem'.
- banning smart glasses doesn't make sense if you're not also banning all devices that can film discreetly (so, smartphones)
- 'creeps' use hidden miniature cameras, not glasses with an obvious camera right there on their very face
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#785Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t “nothing is truly safe” a common saying on HN? Safe is an absolute term and since nothing can be safe people usually avoid using safe as a standalone attribution to something. It is usually qualified in some way.
> Safe is an absolute term Safe is generally a gradable adjective [1], though can be non-gradable in certain contexts (like programming). We are getting into the weeds though, aren't we? [1] https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-gramma...
I was just curious. This “nothing is safe” is just burnt into my brain and simply wanted to know the reason because it sounded so far fetched that safe is not absolute. But I totally agree.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#786Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Sure, every interaction in society is a tradeoff... However, I must destroy your dreams. Being disabled almost always means surrendering control over your own life to others. Or, better phrased, constantly fighting to keep control from being taken away from you by external, mostly well meaning, forces. But I get it, really. No need to ELI5. I hope the "you" in your explanation was rethorical... because if it wasn't, I definitely feel talked down to. I read the article we are commenting. I am well aware about the problem of hallucination, especially when image LLMs get used to describe the world. I have even done my own empirical tests to get a feel of the extent of the problem. All my comment was trying to say is, that when it comes to assistive technologies which actually provide value, idiology and privacy concerns pretty much go out the window very very fast, much faster then the average HN reader might assume. That is why Meta glasses are very popular amongst the visually impaired. Or do you seriously suggest they (we) are all so naiv as to not know what kind of deal we just struck with the devil?
Full disclosure: I don't own Meta glasses (yet), but I know some users and observe rollout amongst assistive technology resellers.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#787Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 micro…
We successfully shamed people out of wearing Google glasses. We also mostly have social norms about when recording with your smart phone is ok. We don't need to accept defeat about these glasses just yet
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#788Often I hear. “these are so cool! It’s a shame meta makes them.” All of their pivots will fail because of their track record IMo.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#789> Meta
> Privacy
Pick one.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#790I 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 mean laptop webcams also shine a light when they're recording but obviously you don't just trust the light to come on right?
The more trustworthy ones have a physical door you can close