841–850 of 870 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Have a nice day
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any less obviously aggressive tactics we can use? Wear something that is blinding to the cameras, or something else to obfuscate?
Slapping a pair of glasses that are recording you, processing your face, sending biometrics and images back to one of the worst privacy offenders on the planet off of the face of someone who is willingly doing all that without asking your permission is a perfectly appropriate reaction. Put your shoulder into it. I'd rather we normalize that than adversarial fashion.. but that's probably what you were looking for.
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). 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…
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…
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…
Are you referring to the same company that runs Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram? Meta has, for well over a decade, been caught multiple times -as recently as 2 years ago caught for the third time I know of- burrowing into areas of phones that their apps weren't directly given access to. Android phones have been highly susceptible to this kind of snooping.
https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/meta-halts-phone-and-...
Ah yes, while everyone was focused on Flock cameras... For many more reasons than pervert behaviour, I agree that this kind of tool cannot coexist with healthy society. "Glassholes" was a delightful portmanteau, but I suspect normalising a term like "pedo glasses" will probably put people off them way sooner and faster. At the very least it identifies the product and not the person as the problem.
Trump-Epstein Glasses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incorrect points, there should be just first and the rest is just fluff. Try taking a photo of somebody with your phone. Usage will definitely look like you are snapping a picture, nobody walks around with phones straight up. The result is, when you take pics with phone, most often its obvious. When you insult people by not asking, they see it and react negatively. When you point to people with smart glasses, nobody…
> Try taking a photo of somebody with your phone. Usage will definitely look like you are snapping a picture, nobody walks around with phones straight up. I urge you to visit any big city and see for yourself how wrong you are. I see it at least every time every day just during my barely 20-25min subway commute to work. And that's the most unremarkable the most uninteresting place and scenario here. Any big park, any…
Guess its not that subtle then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
You're moving goalposts. Of course using video of someone in a TV commercial requires consent. I never disputed any of that.
>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?
It's more like A. It isn't like B at all. But I purposely refuse to let friends take photos of me, and opt-out of group photos, because I know those photos end up on Facebook, where Facebook can do whatever they want with it short of using my likeness in an ad - at least that should be how it works, but Facebook doesn't really give a fuck about anything or anyone, so YMMV. Actual advertising companies and media companies will not use a likeness without consent, and I see plenty of faces blurred out in some "reality" shows where they did not get consent from specific people.
I can take a photo of you in public, and I can do lots of things with that photo. But if I want to sell something based on your photo, then I need to ask your permission.
Do you understand now?
This has happened to me before - someone took a photo of me and used it in an ad, and someone I know saw the ad and sent it to me... so I asked the company to stop using my photo to advertise their product, and they complied. Yes, they should have asked to use the photo first, but they likely found the photo someone else took who posted on the internet and someone at the company loved it so much (it was a great, unique photo) and wanted to use it in a fun way to promote their product. No, they should not have done that, but I get why they wanted to. Maybe they thought that sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness than consent? I don't know, I don't care, but it wasn't that big a deal.
Also, FWIW, I just installed a new app called "Nearby Glasses" that scans for known bluetooth signatures of these recording glasses, and alerts when someone with these glasses is recording nearby.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 s…
>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. You're moving goalposts. Of course using video of someone in a TV commercial requires consent. I never disputed any of that. >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 Facebo…
I understand, and I disagree. I think if you send video to Meta who uses it to make money (and likely offer you free services in return) then that's a commercial use of the recording. Whether it's similar to a tv-ad or not can be debated, but it's definitely recording and using it commercially.
So here's my opinion very simply: People should be required to ask for permission before sending recordings to endpoints where they even have a _risk_ of being used commercially (For example, training a LLM at Apple, or be used to improve self-driving cars at Tesla or whatever) then it should be the same as for using the recording in an a ad. Full explicit consent needed from everyone recognizable in the recording with their voice or likeness.