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

791–800 of 870 posts

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

#791

Post by quantified »

juleiie wrote: post #364
jmye wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When stranger assaults you, every person with some practical military training is going to want to neutralise target as fast as possible because this is the survival strategy that is hammered into your muscle memory. There is no thinking or musing whether they just want to slap you or I don’t know what. You don’t know your attacker and their intentions. This is the real world. I don’t know why you would think this is…

Not sure why you're being downvoted, except that you might be overgeneralizing on former military. Some people can kick your ass badly without a knife or gun, like military/ex-military.

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

#793

Post by whyoh »

adamauckland wrote: post #739
whyoh wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

People send their private photos to their private cloud backups with the reasonable expectation that those photos remain private and therefore not a privacy violation. 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.

Google and Apple's staff do look at people's photos, at least occasionally. The typical excuse is detecting rule violations.

It's not the same as doing this systematically (like Meta here), but these are shades of gray. A serious privacy law would prohibit both.

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

#794

Post by asadotzler »

duskdozer wrote: post #451
drawnwren wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.

There's a big difference between "someone said something stupid as a kid"... "but now has changed and is a totally different person" and "is doing the same things but now knows how not to say the quiet part out loud"

He wasn't even a kid. He was like 20 years old at university.

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

#795

Post by godelski »

Gooblebrai wrote: post #714
ElProlactin wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "smearing" to use Zuckerberg's own words in a discussion of his character, and this is far from the only example of things he's done or said in the past 20 years that would lead a reasonable person to call into question his moral fiber. It remains, however, a popular point of reference because: 1. It's fast and easy to read and digest. 2. The blunt language leaves little room for speculation about his feelin…

> his pre-wealth behavior gives insight into who he really is "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." Not defending Zuck but it reflects a rigid mindset to assume that people cannot change.

When a man changes it is on him to prove that he has changed. Has Zuck atoned himself in any way? Has Meta?

I'm a big believer in second chances and letting people rehabilitate, but there's no evidence the Meta or Zuck have changed for the better. Meanwhile, *there is plenty of evidence that suggests he has only become more uncaring and deceptive, as Meta has only become more invasive over time*, the article itself being one such example.

So I do believe Zuck has changed, but not in the direction that we should applaud and/or forgive him. I've only seen him change in the way that should make us more concerned and further justify the hatred. A man may change, but he does not always change for the better.

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

#796

Post by godelski »

edgyquant wrote: post #735
ethbr1 wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're suggesting a ton of money and power made Zuckerberg more empathetic?

No I didn’t suggest that, I’m stating a fact that kids say stupid stuff all the time.

No, you didn't suggest that. You suggested that the quote is not representative of who he is now.

We'd need a lot more context (and words) for us to understand that sentence as anything other than defending him. At best you're giving him the benefit of doubt.

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

#797

Post by nullwarp »

ccccrrriis wrote: post #301

I got a pair as a gift and didn't look much into them but I have to be honest, I assumed any data I captured - voice, video, etc. - would be sent to their servers (to use their models) and they'd be using it for training with humans in the loop. Tbh the only thing I really use the glasses for are listening to music or talking on the phone - so basically how you'd use airpods. I don't use airpods because I had an ear…

FWIW I have Bose Frames which are great and do the same thing minus the camera.

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

#798

Post by nomel »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #662
Sebguer wrote: post #656

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. you have to intentionally modify the glasses to be able to surreptitiously record.

> 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.

This is somewhat handled by the max recording time of 3 minutes.

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

#799

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

chucksmash wrote: post #720
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.

Non-consensual? Abuse? The terminology you chose is tasteless, loaded, and detracts from your point.

It’s not a controversial viewpoint that a child can’t consent to their information being uploaded permanently to the internet, even by a parent. This is because, as an adult, I can’t retroactively remove my presence from the internet. Seems silly in trivial cases (school website), but is quite severe in others (bathtub photos).

It’s also not controversial to paint the harmful, profit-seeking actions of companies upon minors as “abusive” (e.g. tobacco firms).

If anything, your knee-jerk response at their rhetoric raises eyebrows: why would you go to bat for a company who by nearly all public measures is fundamentally evil in aim and structure?

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

#800

Post by nomel »

mofeien wrote: post #688
weli wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Even if they wanted to fix this by making the light sensor do a constant check it wouldn't work as the privacy led light indicator is triggering the same sensor, The privacy led light could just turn off for a couple of milliseconds (or less) while the light sensor performs its check.

Or, just buy any of the many pages of hidden cam devices that exist on Amazon, which also aren't limited to only 3 minute videos.
Post reply on HN