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 trust the zuck at all, and am not naive about any of this. I'm sure the words used above are watertight in court of law but I bet you there are shenanigans in places where light don't reach
I do not care about the privacy of people who buy these glasses nor their families. I care about the innocent people whose privacy is invaded by people who buy these glasses.
I’ve always been curious if they violate GDPR, HIPPA or similar, given they actively record everything you see, including European nationals and health records.
Can someone explain the downvotes here? I genuinely do not understand if I’ve said something dumb or if they’re just people scoffing at what I thought might be legitimate legal rights of people?
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?
There are bubbles, you are obviously in one if you do not know any privacy concerned under 25. I know 15 year olds who are extreme privacy freaks, then I care about it so it might be easier to find those people. I do find that it is the people that I think are least likely are the one who are the most extreme.
You make a good point. I know a couple in there late 20s with kids who are pretty apathetic about their own privacy but who refuse to let Google or iCloud sync photos of their kids.
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…
If there's something wrong with how we've organized our society than we need to fix it on a societal level.
Evoking what the comment in question evokes over uploading pictures of your kid to the internet is not the way to convince people. It takes the thing you want people to care about and exaggerates it in a way that makes your view point trivial to dismiss.
I say this from the place of someone who deactivated their social media accounts over similar concerns. This is not the way to convince people.
I 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…
>(hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally)
I 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…
>(hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally) Hard to believe they would? This is Mark Zuckerberg we are talking about. It's hard to believe they wouldn't .
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…
Do you take them off in the bathroom? Or if the wife is feeling spontaneous?
You're right, it's much worse and we should be doing everything we can to turn it around. I propose we just assume people with meta glasses are recording others in public and we call them creeps. Shaming works, we should use it more.
> it's much worse
It def is much worse if your concern is privacy, but with all the CCTV around I am not sure its the top of my list.
I'm probably going smart glasses+cellular watch the moment a better company makes that pairing happen. I am growing very tired of the screen being present in everything.
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?
I'm pretty sure they care who takes pictures or videos of them. Try going on a train and taking pictures of a young woman or man. The only difference is these are less noticeable.
> and even we disagree on which tech is creepy.
I think this is a huge point of constant bickering here. Makes it impossible to take most privacy centric discussion seriously.
My reading was that as soon as you enable the "AI" functionality you are opted into having your recordings labeled. "But for the AI assistant to function, voice, text, image and sometimes video must be processed and may be shared onwards. This data processing is done automatically and cannot be turned off."
Right, that's the section I was confused by because it was in the context of an experiment trying to use the AI stuff without an Internet connection, which obviously won't work. The article is using the "shared onwards" terminology to refer to at least inference. But the inference part is uninteresting to me, and the data labeling is. The article doesn't really separate those out.
I would figure if there is AI labeling that some things will confuse the system and will be sent to a human. And some things will randomly be sent to a human for error checking. Same thing with Alexa, I figure there's always a low probability chance that anything I say to her will end up reaching a human. She's not always listening as some people fear (the data use would have been detected long ago if she were), but humans occasionally trigger her accidentally--and such errant triggers will be more likely to be sent to a human because they are not going to make sense.