- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
Maybe I’m behind the curve here but I don’t see the big deal. Is it because of who made them? We already have high quality cameras in our pockets that can record at any time. Those devices are also recording audio without the owner’s knowledge. And when you’re in public you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, depending on the country at least, and can already be recorded at any time without your permission. Most stores have cameras too. I’m not trying to be a shill and especially not trying to be anti-privacy. I’d never own them and would prefer not to be recorded even when in public but that’s already near impossible so why is this where people are drawing the line when streamers have been going out in public recording people without permission for years? And I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just curious why people who watch someone stream in public are now turning on him because his camera fits on his face.
Surreptitious recording is why.
Yes, there’s technically no expectation of privacy in public and people can legally record you in public spaces. The problem is being able to hide you’re recording. If you’re making small talk to a stranger and they pull out their phone to record the conversion, you’re going to be weirded out and leave. If they have these glasses, you might not even know your conversion is being broadcast.
It’s weird to me how people forgot what happened to Google Glass and ‘glassholes’.
Used to work with a guy that would wear those out in public, wait for a negative reaction, and then dox the person to his online followers. He was truly a monumental piece of shit.
I feel like it would’ve been pretty simple to embed a forward-facing LED in the frames that turns on whenever the camera is capturing… Designing that LED such that it couldn’t be disabled, covered, or removed might be trickier, but it would’ve been an easy way for Meta to show they were at least trying to prevent them from being used by creeps.
They do have an LED that’s meant to show when they’re in use. They’re also designed to detect tampering with the LED. But they can’t detect a piece of tape or black nail polish painted over it.
Huh, surprised I haven’t heard about that. Shame it’s so easy to circumvent, though. I feel like there has to be a better way to make something like that harder to defeat.
Snapping out propably 🤔
They can detect the piece of tape as it looks like there’s a photoreceptor very nearby - if covered, the photoreceptor doesn’t see the light of the recording LED and it doesn’t record.
But, of course the perverts who buy pervert glasses can buy black stickers with a specific shape and applicator that lets you cover the light but without tripping the photoreceptor
We designed our AI glasses with privacy and safety features built in from the start
Total bullshit from a company that specifically avoids adding any safety or guardrails to their products until legally forced to do so.
- It’s got AI
- It’s got a camera
We went through this privacy ruining bs with Google Glass 10 years ago, but you know – personal privacy doesn’t exist any more. No regulations are stopping any of it. We have public face recognition cameras and some that track nationally; recordings of the public from a billion users that don’t blur faces unless consent to record is given; overstepping police that actively break the law, lie and coerce their victims into giving up their autonomy…
I hate Metas approach on these.
I used the oakley ones for sport (biking and skiing), and the action cam features are fantastic, as is the headset and audio playback that leaves your ears open while playing music. I’ve worn them once while running and never again: they took short clips when reaching a milestone (like every kilometer) and i was horrified seeing so many other people and kids walking by in the footage.
It’s really sad they insist on being so creepy, because they can compare to a gopro. Fucking creeps ruin everything.
We need to bring the same attention and energy to Apple’s perv AirPods.
This is new to me, please explain. Are they listening to people?
PervPods was right there!
They honestly sound creepy AF.
What about phones?
What about eyes?
🌌🧠
Stop. Nobody should need to explain to you the difference between wearables and something you hold in your hand in these scenarios.
I know the difference: you’re used to everyone having a phone with a camera. Depending on your age, you may have never known a world without smartphones.
They’re just as easily used to record people without their knowledge as anything else.
Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:
I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
- Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
- Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
- Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
Yet it’s perv glasses that normalize this, not phones. You don’t see people recording you with a phone while buying groceries. But they will film you with their perv glasses. All the time. There are clear differences and you’re being ignorant to them.
You don’t see people recording you with a phone while buying groceries.
Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Notably, phones don’t have a blinking light to tell you they’re recording.
And I feel like I should mention that you are almost certainly being recorded while buying groceries.
I remember when it was rude to take out your phone at spaces where people may want privacy like gay bars, and if you did take it out you visibly kept your finger over the camera. Nowadays only specific sensitive types of places have such rules and it has to be explicitly a rule that’s enforced.
I remember when smartphones were new, there was talk of mandating by law that they made a noise when a picture was taken, to prevent being able to take pictures surreptitiously.
Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Notably, phones don’t have a blinking light to tell you they’re recording.
Yeah but the person has to point it towards you. If they’re doing it, the default assumption is that they’re filming.
Notably, you don’t have to be looking directly at a person to record them with a phone, as opposed to wearing a camera on your face.
I remember people not having cameras. Is pretty obvious when people are recording or taking pictures with a phone
It can be, but it doesn’t have to be.
break these on sight
