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

821–830 of 870 posts

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

#821

Post by leptons »

alkonaut wrote: post #645
leptons wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few places you can expect privacy in public. Restrooms, changing rooms, etc. But in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US). In private settings, as with public, you are typically free to leave a setting where people are recording. The law has no specifications for what type of device can do the recording, pr for how long a recording can be.

> in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US) Shouldn't there be a discussion about what that means? What _is_ privacy? Is it completely black or white, all or nothing? Are some kinds of privacy breaches more acceptable than others? I feel that the "you can have no expectation of privacy in public" discussion is some times used as if it's some sort of fundamental truth that must n…

Wear a burqa if you want total privacy while in public. Or prosthetics, I guess. I've seen people wearing full-face reflective shields in public - but that was mostly as a sun-shield to protect their ever-shriveling faces. The only thing stopping you from having real privacy while in public is social norms.

Other than that I don't see a way to remain "private" while in "public" with the current laws that we have, and I kind of like the laws that we have.

These are the same laws that let us record law enforcement, which is especially useful when they abuse their power - something that happens far to often. If the laws around recording in public were altered, then we likely also lose that right, and then law enforcement becomes even more dangerous to the citizens.

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

#822

Post by leptons »

greentea23 wrote: post #503
leptons wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few places you can expect privacy in public. Restrooms, changing rooms, etc. But in most places in public you should have zero expectation of privacy (in the US). In private settings, as with public, you are typically free to leave a setting where people are recording. The law has no specifications for what type of device can do the recording, pr for how long a recording can be.

What you expect does not have to be what you strive for.

The same laws that let us record in public, also let us record law enforcement, which does give us a way to document abuse of power - something that happens all too often. If we start restricting recording in public, then we lose that right, and then law enforcement will become far more abusive with their power.

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

#823

Post by iso-logi »

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.

How exactly can a child consent to having their face analyzed and tracked, both by Facebook and its 10,000 ad partners, including ingestion into Government databases automatically, then used in countless AI algorithms, which may act against them.

They simply are not of sound mind to understand the consequences of such a transaction.

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

#824

Post by antiframe »

shevy-java wrote: post #685
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to guess that people are intentionally recording themselves having sex, assuming that they are creating a local recording that is not sent to Meta. Does the light mean "camera is recording" or "cloud services are involved"?

I am very much confused. People recorded sex way before the meta-spy-glasses. I mean, not as if I were to visit such sites, right ... but video recordings can be done in numerous ways. Also on small devices. I mean the smartphones are fairly small.

Right, but most people didn't send their sex tapes to a multinational corporation.

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

#825

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

chucksmash wrote: post #814
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

> This is not the way to convince people.

Idk, agree to disagree in this case. Sometimes people do need to hear the stark words of those they disagree with to reconsider their weakly, or even deeply, held positions. Especially in this forum, where so many people of what I would figure is “higher intelligence” continue to turn a blind eye to the clearly unethical actions of their employers because $$$. Some of them even convince themselves that what they’re doing is somehow not unethical!

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

#827

Post by chucksmash »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #825
chucksmash wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thei…

> This is not the way to convince people. Idk, agree to disagree in this case. Sometimes people do need to hear the stark words of those they disagree with to reconsider their weakly, or even deeply, held positions. Especially in this forum, where so many people of what I would figure is “higher intelligence” continue to turn a blind eye to the clearly unethical actions of their employers because $$$. Some of them ev…

Consider the US in the late 2010s and where we are now. Making the (oversaturating) argument that X is basically Y is how we got here. The people who argee with you directtionally nod in agreement (because of course it is) and you alienate the ones who don't.

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

#828

Post by alex1138 »

ElProlactin wrote: post #759
Gooblebrai wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People can change but based on Facebook's actions vis-a-vis privacy, mental health, etc. there's little evidence that Zuckerberg has gone from treating his users like "dumb f...." to treating them like human beings. If we're going to talk about quotes, here's one: "money amplifies who you are".

Whatsapp is one of the only instances I can think of in corporate acquisitions where the side being acquired lashes out at the acquiring side as much as this ("It's time. Delete Facebook")

You're talking about someone who changes privacy settings, who was told about gay people being automatically added to groups and posting on their walls so it outed them, being told about this and dismissing it. Or "graph search". He doesn't think people deserve any respect when it's not him?

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

#829

Post by alterom »

pembrook wrote: post #630
alterom wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…

Now if only we could look up everything you said in chatrooms as a 19 year old and post the most inflammatory stuff on HN. I’m sure you’ve never said anything callous or snarky, and were a bastion of morality as a teenager.

>Now if only we could look up everything you said in chatrooms as a 19 year old and post the most inflammatory stuff on HN.

Sure. Wen I was in college, I didn't have the idea of snooping on other students and exploiting them as "dumb fucks" who were stupid enough to trust me.

Most of my public online history starts at around that time too.

And one of my first comments on Slashdot was expressing concern about Facebook violating people's privacy by introducing the feed back in 2006.

https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=195861&cid=16054826

I was 19 then.

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

#830

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

chucksmash wrote: post #827
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not the way to convince people. Idk, agree to disagree in this case. Sometimes people do need to hear the stark words of those they disagree with to reconsider their weakly, or even deeply, held positions. Especially in this forum, where so many people of what I would figure is “higher intelligence” continue to turn a blind eye to the clearly unethical actions of their employers because $$$. Some of them ev…

Consider the US in the late 2010s and where we are now. Making the (oversaturating) argument that X is basically Y is how we got here. The people who argee with you directtionally nod in agreement (because of course it is) and you alienate the ones who don't.

> X is basically Y is how we got here

This is abuser rhetoric that’s become increasingly common in conservative circles, akin to “You’re making me do this to you!”

“Woke” individuals (i.e. people who are well-read and critically observant) have been sounding the alarm about warning signs for years, but their message was often twisted and lampooned, leaving an easy out for less critically-observant individuals to mark it as hysteria: “X is basically Y”.

You can find plenty of moderate “woke” voices dating back to the Bush administration warning about objectively concerning trends, especially with regards to the surveillance state and rights to privacy, which is why this thread exists in the first place.

Post reply on HN