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

861–870 of 870 posts

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

#861

Post by bennyelv »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #510
jackcviers3 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, let's regulate it! And why are glasses more offensive than cell phone cameras, or go pros, or drones? I genuinely do not understand why people don't worry about the other form factors, but draw the line at the glasses, so help me here. To be clear - I understand why people find being recorded creepy. I don't understand why the glasses form factor is creepy but random cell phone recordings that are shared on th…

tl;dr It's the difference between possessing a camera and actively pointing it at someone. Think about the practical aspect of it. I have to point my phone at you to record you. It's really quite conspicuous. It's also mildly inconvenient for me so I won't be doing it the vast majority of the time. Whereas the glasses point wherever you're looking, are expected to be recording constantly, and are expected to do thing…

I disagree - it’s extremely easy to film on your phone covertly. If someone wants to film you without you noticing they will be able to do so.

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

#862

Post by DrewADesign »

juleiie wrote: post #678
diath wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even I, average looking girl, walk with a knife everywhere and I am trained how to use it to kill I can guarantee you that if you ever end up getting sucker punched by an adult male, you will at best get dazed and not know what's going on, and at worst knocked out cold. The knife is giving you a false illusion of safety. It would only ever be really effective if you were the attacker that pulled out the knife on a…

Yeah you really have to make sure you do not miss, the punch doesn’t glance off, and has enough power to knock out the meta glass wearer in one go. There is still the footage question though, probably saved live to the cloud. That’s a lot of things to go as expected and a lot of unavoidable trouble anyway. It’s just such a stupid idea to go around punching people. It gets you in trouble, it gets the defender in troub…

> That’s a lot of things to go as expected and a lot of unavoidable trouble anyway.

Sure is.

As someone whose professional life lead me to witness probably 1000 fights in the wild and be involved with probably 2/3— even that muscle memory training only gets you so far. Violent scenes are usually chaotic and involve people bumping into hard from behind, uneven footing, slippery surfaces, shitty shoes, having things in your hands which even if you don’t care about dropping them, you have to think for half a second about whether or not you care about dropping it, winter gloves, backpacks or other bags, sleeves getting caught on things, etc. etc. etc.

Even the best trained people are often caught flat-footed. The only people that think they can fight their way out of consequences learned what they know about violence from movies and games.

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

#863

Post by jacyro »

NekkoDroid wrote: post #662
Sebguer wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my understanding is that the light is resistant to simply taping over it, and recording can't happen in this case. you have to intentionally modify the glasses to be able to surreptitiously record.

> my understanding is that the light is resistant to simply taping over it, and recording can't happen in this case. I remember when the glasses came out and this was tested: if you tape it over before starting the recording it refuses, but if you tape it after starting it will happily continue to record. I don't know if they changed it, but that is how it use to be.

You can buy sticker packs on amazon that specifically allow enough light to enter so recording functions while blocking the LED indicator.

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

#864

Post by yunwal »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #860
yunwal wrote: post #857

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.…

Have you heard of the story of the boy who cried wolf? The wolf succeeds because people start ignoring the boy whenever he claims there's a wolf. So no, it's not a weak argument. It's the whole point of the story you're referencing.

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

#865

Post by alex1sa »

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…

[flagged]

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

#866

Post by a_ba »

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…

The light is a mere technicality. Zuck himself was smart enough to cover his laptop cam/camera with tape 10 years ago[0].

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36596070

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

#867

Post by alterom »

pembrook wrote: post #840
542354234235 wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hopin…

>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.

That's funny.

You genuinely think that doing something "publicly notable" is necessary and sufficient for being involved in multiple public scandals, as if notable people who aren't slimy asshats didn't exist.

It's a fine argument too. You can keep narrowing down what counts as "publicly notable" until it only includes "founding Meta" when counterexamples are pointed out to you.

That's how you can be so confident is saying "you've never done anything in your life that's publicly notable" without knowing who you're talking to.

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

What a beautiful example moving the goal posts with a personal attack while saying absolutely nothing that has any discernable meaning.

Easing the pain of comparison, huh?

It's not painful to compare an asshat who brags about betraying trust of people who thought he's a decent human being to anyone who finds that repulsive.

Particularly in the context of discussing how trustworthy that person is.

It's not about "morals", see.

It's that Mark Zuckerberg is the highest authority when it comes to talking about Mark Zuckerberg, —...

... — and he explicitly said that you'd be a dumb fuck to trust him with your personal data, which is what you do when you wear Meta's AI glasses.

These are the concrete, specific facts, not contrived examples about high school girls (on whose behalf you can't speak either).

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

#868

Post by thomastjeffery »

linkjuice4all wrote: post #188
AlienRobot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the frog is boiling and some people already think that "in public" means "it's okay to record people and post it on the Internet."

In the US, at least, it's pretty much legal to record the public as long as people have no expectation of privacy (IANAL, exclusions apply, non-commercial use, etc) It's difficult to draw a bright line between these activities: - I told someone else something I saw the other day - I painted a picture of the public square or wrote a book about specific activities that I witnessed - I specifically remembered an individ…

Some of those are definitely not legal, by any reasonable reading of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment in particular is predicated on a reasonable reading.

The problem is that our courts have utterly failed to stand up for civil rights. This is especially true of the Supreme Court, who quite literally define how the law is interpreted.

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

#869

Post by filoleg »

chucksta wrote: post #848
filoleg wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I see it at least every time every day just during my barely 20-25min subway commute to work. Guess its not that subtle then

I mean, it is about as subtle as a middle school student or someone wearing a suit+tie on subway. I would notice them, but absolutely nobody would mind or care about it.

People holding their phone up get pretty much the exact same treatment. I.e., being something that you would notice, but pay no mind to it as being something entirely unremarkable.

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

#870

Post by lnrd »

observationist wrote: post #81
lnrd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need laws and social norms where filming a stranger and uploading it online is considered a serious unacceptable offense regardless of the device. I find it absurd that today is completely acceptable to just film an unaware stranger and put the video online, especially since that the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them.

You shouldn't expect privacy in public spaces. That's the nature of public spaces. In the US, freedom of press means anywhere public means you have no expectation of privacy, and should comport yourself as such; don't do anything or wear anything in public you wouldn't want to be recorded. This is why paparazzi exist and how they operate. It's the dirty, dingy cost of having a free press, freedom of travel, freedom t…

It's amusing to always have this US-centric view touted as some ultimate truth while lacking any nuance. I live in Germany and here there is absolutely an expectation of privacy in public spaces. The individual rights (privacy) are balanced with the collective rights (freedom of press) and both are allowed to exist, because based on the context of the situation one right can prevail on the other. To give you some simple examples: if I go to a public event, a political manifestation, then no: no expectation of privacy. But if I am walking around with my family in a park, yes there's absolute expectation of privacy even if I'm in a public space. Context matters and it's impossible to have just one broad and vague rule covering anything. Also keep in mind that a public figure automatically has lower expectations of privacy than a private citizen. While I can sue a paper for publishing a picture of me slacking at work, a public figure most likely cannot or would lose in court because the right of the people to get informed of his behavior is higher than his right for privacy. Who gets to decide? A healthy judiciary system, not "those in power".

Another interesting nuance of the law in Germany is: it's almost always illegal to take pictures or video of people that show their suffering or struggle. You cannot take a video of a man having a mental breakdown for example. Is this universal? No, of course a journalist will take a picture of a suffering man in the cold to send a message about inequality. If he ever will be sued it will be the judge to decide if in this specific instance the right of the individual or the right of the collective right should prevail.

Post reply on HN