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

851–860 of 870 posts

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

#851

Post by vizzah »

krunck wrote: post #775
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 absolutely within possibility that all "camera is on" lights are software controlled just like the camera and independently of the camera. They are meant to tell the user that they are using the camera. They are not meant to tell anyone that the owner of the devices back-end is using the camera.

they are not. their design is done well to make it hard to circumvent the light.

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

#852

Post by leptons »

alkonaut wrote: post #850
leptons wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> But if I want to sell something based on your photo, then I need to ask your permission. Do you understand now? 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…

Okay, I can agree with that. And the laws definitely have not kept up with the times.

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

#853

Post by Aeolun »

dataflow wrote: post #99
Aeolun wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I so cynical, or does this sound hopelessly naive? This is exactly what I would expect. Certainly of Meta. Amazon had to go out of their way to reassure people that Siri wasn’t always recording. And I’m still not entirely sure I believe that.

The thing is it's not just surprising from a privacy standpoint but also from an engineering standpoint -- this sounds very data-, power-, and storage-intensive, in a device that's very constrained on all sides, so it wouldn't have even occurred to me this was a possibility. When are they even uploading all the videos without blowing through their power budget and internet data limits? Are they heavily compressing it…

I mean, you store as many as you need right? I’m sure 99% of the data is just immediately trashed. They have enough home videos of kids to not need to label them again, but those videos where someone is undressing in their bedroom will show up as ‘undertagged’ because few people make those videos.

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

#854

Post by Aeolun »

leptons wrote: post #133
Aeolun wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I so cynical, or does this sound hopelessly naive? This is exactly what I would expect. Certainly of Meta. Amazon had to go out of their way to reassure people that Siri wasn’t always recording. And I’m still not entirely sure I believe that.

Amazon Siri?

Haha, yeah. I wrote that, thought something was wrong, but I couldn’t put my finger on why. Figured it probably wasn’t important to the point :)

But yeah, should have been Alexa

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

#855

Post by lelandfe »

jsbisviewtiful wrote: post #846
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…

> (hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally) 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. htt…

Other 2 are Onavo Protect & Project Atlas

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

#856

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

rodwyersoftware wrote: post #842
alkonaut wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

1. You have the mentality of a slave. 2. I am self-sufficient, I work for fun. 3. I was hired yesterday. Have a nice day

Congrats? Who by?

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

#857

Post by yunwal »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #830
chucksmash wrote: post #827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> X is basically Y is how we got here

> This is abuser rhetoric

Oh come on, this has nothing to do with being an abuser. You're doing the online millennial version of calling someone a dork. It's the way an entire generation of "left"ists (with no actual leftist principles) learned to bully the people they have a distaste for. Just call them an abuser, a facist, etc etc until the words mean nothing anymore and actual abusers and facists can get away with it in broad daylight.

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

#858

Post by croes »

chwahoo wrote: post #271

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…

In the future your kids could sue you for uploading their pictures.

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

#859

Post by croes »

tim333 wrote: post #749
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.

Probably the majority of the planet share family photos on facebook, messenger, whatsapp or instagram - all meta properties. On the whole nothing much bad happens.

Pretty short sighted

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

#860

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

yunwal wrote: post #857
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> X is basically Y is how we got here > This is abuser rhetoric Oh come on, this has nothing to do with being an abuser. You're doing the online millennial version of calling someone a dork. It's the way an entire generation of "left"ists (with no actual leftist principles) learned to bully the people they have a distaste for. Just call them an abuser, a facist, etc etc until the words mean nothing anymore and actua…

No I stand by my careful choice of the word “abuser”. There’s quite literally an overarching movement of actions and rhetoric from conservatives since 2016 that is best analogized as an abusive partner.

You’re actually doing it again in your very comment, ironically, painting it as my fault that things are the way they are, despite the fact that all I’ve done is try to bring attention to things that I find troubling. Just like an abusive partner: “It’s your fault. You’re the reason I have to be violent with you.”

So yes, I will continue to call out actions and rhetoric that can be analogized to an abusive relationship because I believe it’s one of the core moral failings of the current reactionary movement in the US.

Edit: Also, isn’t “the boy who cried fascist” a relatively weak argument when the fascists actually do show up, during the exact political movement the boy was warning sounded fascist?

Post reply on HN