[deleted]
'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
81–90 of 280 posts
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#82The thing about smart glasses is when they try to do it surrepticiously, it puts that feeling on the wearer.
Google Glass looked quite different. Everyone knew how you were wearing it. Wear it long enough and people might have questions, try it out, and learn.
Hiding a camera in glasses doesn't allow for those kinds of interactions, its media going into an unknown bucket. It's also very one sided and to the benefit or decision of one person. If the person being recorded had full access to what was being recorded, maybe that might mean something to some folks.
It's too bad because there's probably cases where the form factor of meta's smart glasses are genuinely helpful for today. Instead of finding and rolling them out there first, by trying to push to the general public, the results can vary.
There's no shortage of folks and devices surreptitiously recording people with devices, or during meetings in person. Once that gets figured out socially these kinds of devices may have better reception.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women. This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from h…
I think of this like the camera shutter sound laws in Japan. We could easily regulate that the cameras must have visible indicators that they're recording, and ideally they should be required to be visually distinct from a normal pair of sunglasses in some way. Same for phones too while we're at it.
You can disable the LED at the hardware level
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#84Tech is so frustrating in real life. I feel like we have all the cool sci fi stuff I always wanted, but everything comes with a monkey's paw style gotcha. The idea of meta glasses is so awesome, I want a heads up display to show me whatever I want. But there is no way in hell I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted.
Check out the even reality g2. No camera
I suspect he wants the AR features (which require a camera).
The no camera HUD is exactly what I want, except I also want SSH (Mosh) and sending text to speech to it before I'd buy these.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#85Meta should use their Kylie Jenner et al connection to design a camera that is both stylish and obvious. AFAICT the main use case for camera glasses is very similar to the "gopro on your helmet" use case for cyclists: - to record cool first-person video to upload to TikTok et al - to warn cars / creeps "I'm recording this and will send footage to the cops" AFAICT, influencers generally want people to know they're inf…
At some point, incognito will scale to hidden and I think that's the part that has to be reimagined. It's not about hidden camera, it's about cooperative and consent based.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#86I was trying to brainstorm ways to make these palatable to general society. Because I think this kind of thing is going to happen, but a lot of people (myself included) have a legitimate problem with surreptitious recordings. It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker. Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the c…
Create your own set of glasses with powerful IR LEDs. Then just stare at the glasshole.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#87Tech is so frustrating in real life. I feel like we have all the cool sci fi stuff I always wanted, but everything comes with a monkey's paw style gotcha. The idea of meta glasses is so awesome, I want a heads up display to show me whatever I want. But there is no way in hell I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted.
It’s so interesting to me that there are still so many people who see the monkey’s-paw thing as somehow secondary or incidental, even those who acknowledge that it’s often there! I don’t really understand why this is, or why I feel differently. To me at least, the monkey’s-paw aspect is primary now, to the point that the gee-whiz aspect hardly bears on my thinking at all.
I’m not telling you that I think you’re wrong or foolish, to be clear! I just have this different instinct from you, although it sounds like we basically agree on the reflective level. I’m interested in what it is that directs peoples’ attention and interest in such a way that new information technology products pattern-match to “cool, shiny, new, handy, exciting; freedom” or to “dystopian social control, creepy surveillance capitalism; unfreedom.” People have different System 1 intuitions, orthogonal to their System 2 thinking!
It’s so weird because I used to be the other way. I can’t put my finger on when or how the phase transition took place in my mind.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#88Our idea of a public/private privacy division where private recording is discouraged and public is a free for all really feels dated. I know personally I'd love to see a private/local/wide distribution division or something like that where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net. There are real harms to being a public figure and the net rarely understa…
> where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net.
I think this is wanting a rule that doesn't draw boundaries in a way that aligns with the natural world. Your right to see what is around you and to remember what you see is pretty fundamental. You might say there is a ethical reason not to gossip about what you remember seeing, but I would push back on the idea that it ought to be illegal for Bob to mention to Carol that he saw Alice at the store, and Meta glasses (or paparazzi or even Snow Crash's gargoyles) are a difference of degree, not kind, from the neighborhood gossip.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#89Meta should use their Kylie Jenner et al connection to design a camera that is both stylish and obvious. AFAICT the main use case for camera glasses is very similar to the "gopro on your helmet" use case for cyclists: - to record cool first-person video to upload to TikTok et al - to warn cars / creeps "I'm recording this and will send footage to the cops" AFAICT, influencers generally want people to know they're inf…
I'm sure someone other company will make exactly those glaces, obvious and stylish recording devices.
In the meantime, it's quite telling that Meta is choosing not to.
They want recording to be constant, impossible to detect, and normalized. That's why the camera light is so subtle and easy to cover. The more constant surveillance is normalized, the more they have data about every single facet of our lives to sell to advertises.
Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
#90I was trying to brainstorm ways to make these palatable to general society. Because I think this kind of thing is going to happen, but a lot of people (myself included) have a legitimate problem with surreptitious recordings. It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker. Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the c…
I think the only way will be the tech getting too useful for the complaints to matter. Currently it's only marginally useful. Otherwise this irrational reaction will continue. Would help for the tech to come from companies with less awful reputations. Alternatively, maybe the solution will be some sort of device signature embedded into the video data at the hardware level so that videos are traceable to the person th…
To be clear, I don’t think this reaction is irrational at all. I’m curious though why you do.