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

831–840 of 870 posts

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

#831

Post by benrapscallion »

zmmmmm wrote: post #194

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…

It is Facebook. I expected exactly this from smart glasses made by them. You can’t change the DNA of a company.

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

#832

Post by testbjjl »

yunnpp wrote: post #255
testbjjl wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don’t disagree, with the sentiment, is this not incitement of violence?

Yes. The company is inciting violent behaviour with socially disturbing products.

The company is inciting violence. This can be said of anything. Violence is a choice, self defense is a right. Your “look what you made me do” defense might not go as you planned and feel like the wrong move when your rage dissolves. I remember when this place had fewer broken windows. Seems it’s becoming a ghetto.

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

#833

Post by matsemann »

nedt wrote: post #810
matsemann wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll confess I look at Meta Glasses the same as Google Glasses: A big sign saying "punch me in the face". If you enter some premises I'm in while wearing those, I'm either leaving or they will have to come off your face somehow. Wearing these glasses is just as obnoxious as walking around putting your phone in people's faces while recording.

If it say "punch me in the face" then you have bigger problems. And after you got recorded showing what it says to you they might be growing. Tell them what you think but don't forget "Pretty, I feel pretty, ..." - just in case.

Your thinly veiled threat of using the glasses to record and then publish interactions to harass people is exactly why lots of people have issues with these glasses...

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

#834

Post by nedt »

matsemann wrote: post #833
nedt wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it say "punch me in the face" then you have bigger problems. And after you got recorded showing what it says to you they might be growing. Tell them what you think but don't forget "Pretty, I feel pretty, ..." - just in case.

Your thinly veiled threat of using the glasses to record and then publish interactions to harass people is exactly why lots of people have issues with these glasses...

They can just take the glasses off and stop being a thread. What about you?

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

#835

Post by DonHopkins »

rationalist wrote: post #770
DonHopkins wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The other issue, that Facebook was running a silent audio stream in the background, is also called out. Grant says this was unintentional, and that it was not being used to keep the app alive — yet it did as a byproduct of the bug. How much issue tracking and scrum management and engineering work and code review and testing and deployment and maintenance went into accidentally streaming silent audio that you only st…

I was just reading a comment on HN yesterday about how MacOS had so many bugs. I guess they don't have issue tracking, scrum management, engineering work, code review, testing, deployment, and maintenance either. I hate FB, but not everything is always a sinister plan, although this could have been. I will repeat: "with Facebook, who knows."

There is a huge difference between accidentally shipping a bug, and accidentally shipping a fully functional distributed end-to-end silent audio streaming system that works at Facebook's scale. They are in no way comparable. All the intricate crosscutting interoperating client, server, and middeware components of an end-to-end Facebook scale silent audio streaming pipeline do not just accidentally emerge without anybody noticing and magically dovetail together perfectly because nobody was paying enough attention to detail.

Large distributed systems don’t spontaneously assemble themselves without anyone understanding what they’re doing or intending for it to happen.

>I will repeat: "with Facebook, who knows."

Apparently we all know the obvious except for you. And you're not living up to your user name, which perhaps should be "rationalizer" not "rationalist". Instead of begin rational, you're bending over backwards to implausibly carry the water for Facebook beyond all credulity. It's a bad look, and shows you're vastly underestimating the complexity of developing distributed streaming software at that scale. So I will repeat what rsynnott said:

>And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

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

#836

Post by aucisson_masque »

sschueller wrote: post #47
aucisson_masque wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An absolute privacy nightmare especially in places like Switzerland or Germany where recording people (subject focus) even in public is not permitted That's the prime example of a law that can't be enforced and thus shouldn't exist. You go in town, you can be recorded inadvertantly, as long as it's not some creep stalking you, I say it's fine.

It can and is enforced. Again it's if the person is the focus of your video. If you post a video online of someone's worst day which you decided to film for entertainment, they can legally go after you.

> If you post a video online of someone's worst day which you decided to film for entertainment, they can legally go after you.

Then,it's stalking and it's different. There are much less case of stalking than people accidentally incorporating other people in their picture frame.

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

#837

Post by alkonaut »

observationist wrote: post #766
alkonaut wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if we weigh legitimate use cases against privacy and end up deciding that the privacy is more important, then we just don't accept those use cases? That is: we invent new awesome life-changing technology and we just... don't use it? Like we could have navigational AR-glasses. The wearer sees arrows on the floor where to walk. And we could choose to not let anyone wear them in public even though what they do is…

Part of it is civics. You have the right to record in public. Being in a public space means you are consenting to being recorded; it's in public. It's not always moral, classy, correct, or good, but the alternative is the erosion of the principles of free press, freedom of expression, etc. The form factor of the camera doesn't matter. We do have different constraints, but those are pretty solidly filled out in case l…

> Being in a public space means you are consenting to being recorded;

I think we all know the black/white of: you can record all you want. You can not use my face in a commercial. That idea has served us well for a century. The problem is never the recording, it's what happens to the recorded material. If you just keep it for personal use, use it for journalism? That was never a problem.

I'd argue that using the recording to send to a different continent which is then processed by humans and/or computers and this then affects me or others (E.g. changes which ad the person next to me on the train sees on their phone) is now straddling a line somewhere between the black and white of "being recorded" and "being used in a commercial". That recording wasn't just this person observing or recording in a public space. It wasn't just used for "personal use" or journalism. It's something else.

I think it's this gray area that just needs to be cleared up. What if "transmitting a recording of someone to a commercial entity that potentially does commercial things with it" was classed just as "putting my face in the TV ad"? The GDPR (and similar) also might help (where applicable).

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

#838

Post by alkonaut »

rodwyersoftware wrote: post #763
alkonaut wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you make a wrong turn? /r/asshat is over there -> You posted a message in "Who wants to be hired" at almost the same time as you posted this. Do you think a potential recruiter would read your comment history? Sigh

I really don't care. I am a free man

You cared enough to post in "who wants to be hired" but you don't care about actually being hired?

I think you might be a "free man" longer than you want...

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

#839

Post by alkonaut »

leptons wrote: post #821
alkonaut wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This isn't about recording. Recording was always ok. I could always record you in public. You could be part of my personal video collection, or I could use the clip of you in journalism.

But if I record you and use it in a TV commercial, that's different. The recording isn't the problem, it's what's done to the recording.

Now I'd ask: is sending the video of you to a Meta server so they can recognize your face at a specific store and location and influence which ads your mom see on Facebook more like a) journalism and personal use or which is acceptable b) the case where I recorded you and used your face in the TV commercial, which isn't acceptable?

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

#840

Post by pembrook »

542354234235 wrote: post #728
pembrook wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've tried to learn and grow from the stupid comments of my youth. I haven't been involved in a long list of scandals directly related to the ideas those comments expressed, and if I was, it would be pretty clear that I didn't learn or grow at all.

You haven't been involved in a long list of public scandals because you've never done anything in your life that's publicly notable.

By tricking yourself into believing you sit on a higher moral pedestal you're simply easing the pain of comparison.

When high school girls spread gossip that the pretty, popular girl has loose morals, they aren't performing this service out of the goodness of their hearts. They're hoping to elevate themselves by tearing down the competition.

Post reply on HN