- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51620160
I love how they put a pic of “Epstein File Mark” in the article ;)
You must log in or register to comment.
“Upload your ID for every transaction to prove you’re not a sex offender”.
if u cared about privacy y would u buy mr ihateprivacy glasses???
Hot take, but the invasion of privacy only actually occurs when someone publishes the recording. Otherwise, making a personal recording of what someone can see or hear is no more invasive than them being there.
You can’t claim an expectation of privacy against someone when you’re stood in the same room with them.
im guessing every recording is shared to meta no matter the persons intention or what they do
its meta
That’s an interesting argument, however it probably wouldn’t go that far.
Taking it back to retro interpretations, sharing your photo with meta is basically the same as sharing your photo with a print company that takes and processes your negatives. They’re acting on your behalf in a limited scope, so sharing with them is the same as you doing it all yourself.
However it maybe comes back into play when that scope isn’t limited, as Meta require in their terms of service. It doesn’t matter what individuals say to Meta regarding their data, their prohibition is superseded by other users, who agree that they have permission to share other people’s information with Meta.
Meta isn’t breaking privacy laws - you are.
I know it’s a hot-take… But how about we (Earth) ban smart glasses.
This isn’t wise for the sole reason that they really are a great benefit to the visually impaired.
Right now the tech is super useful, being able to read small text out loud and differentiate similar objects that certain conditions make difficult. However, the tech has the potential to do so much more.
Banning it now would be like slapping a whole lot of disabled people in the face.
They do not need to have hidden cameras to work as an aid. The push to make the cameras and microphones hidden is the problem.
Who’s pushing to make them hidden? If you want hidden cameras there’s thousands of vastly superior options than thick, ugly, obvious glasses.
Go search AliExpress right now for “hidden camera”. Your mind will be blown.
I think it’s reasonable if sight impaired people want to appear inconspicuous. You say this is “hiding” the glasses but do you expect them to walk around with a GoPro strapped to a helmet so they can have street signs read to them?
Well in that case they should be regulated with a licence or even a prescription, right? To add to this, disabled people in the example you’re putting forward don’t need internet connectivity or filming capabilities. I see your concern but when the price is the privacy of the entire planet, I can’t accept your argument.
You think people should need a license to use technology like glasses and cameras. Listen to yourself!
I don’t know what kind of “anti” hole you fell into but you need to crawl back out.
Technology that trains AI for fascistic multi-billion dollar companies? Films, tracks, listens to private and potentially sensitive conversations? Yeah, probably.
I’m comfortable in my hole. Maybe you should take the advice of a stranger on the internet instead and grow the fuck up.
You’re confused: You assume that all cameras on glasses will always be controlled by fascists.
Did it ever occur to you that someone might make their own glasses? Or that a company could make a set that works offline?
If you ran things, such technology would never happen because it would be banned before it got out the door.
But you’d be ok with that because you live in a hole, with perfect eyesight and zero foresight.
I don’t really understand how making them offline only makes them any less dangerous? The issue is that the camera is discrete enough that people wont notice theyre being recorded, not that the glasses can connect to the internet.
So to you, the glasses are irrelevant. You just hate hidden cameras… Like police and various misbehaving corporations all over the world.
And what if you’re visually impaired and you are a pervert? Joking… /s
Just ban them for everyone. Pervert glasses have no legitimate use.
Tbh, I would love an appropriate pair. I have issues with memory, particularly regarding faces. A set of smart glasses would be an almost perfect aid to me.
Unfortunately, I don’t trust any of the manufacturers not to abuse the hell out of all the data they generate. I’m also fully aware of the idiots abusing them, and ruining things for everyone else.
Everything they can do, a go-pro or adjacent camera would work without issue and with less ambiguity.
The only reason you could possibly have for using them is to film people in secret. Like a pervert.
Everything they can do, a go-pro or adjacent camera would work without issue and with less ambiguity.
So why aren’t we banning those for perverts too?
Because if people work arround with a go-pro, its clear what they are doing
Disagree. Go-pros are easy to hide inside objects.
The round camera holes in a thick eyeglass frame are much more obvious than a gauze covered lens.
Sure, argue for the protection of children, but at least be consistent.
Lack of imagination. One can easily imagine scenarios where glases can be useful outside filming other people. Simple tasks like getting a receipt and scanning it before throwing away, or getting dietary feedback on a menu items would be quite more easily achieved with smartglasses than otherwise. AR-assisted navigation in cities with to image data could be quite useful as well.
Not to mention if one has sight issues; I can imagine describing environments or reading texts being wildly useful for some.
Perhaps consider first banning devices that are designed for secret filming, e.g. “car key” cameras, watch cameras, pen cameras, powerback cameras, and yes, glass cameras… You can find them from Amazon for <100€, which is much more affordable option in the first place.
Those would be all very valid uses but the problem is is that they’re not smart glasses. They are just normal glasses (well non prescription fake plastic glasses) with a camera in them. If they could give you directions or something on a sort of holographic heads up display they might have some use.
The new Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses do have a display. But in any case, these applications work almost just as fine with speakers as well, and the Ray-Ban glasses had those and supports reading documents, describing surrounds etc.
Plain glasses with camera come much cheaper. Though now that I looked it up, the Meta glasses are surprisingly affordable as well.
edit: scratch that, I don’t know what I was looking… For me Ray-Bans would be 500€ and Metas maybe 1000€.
Why do so many people focus of the almost entirety useless non display meta glasses?
With smart glasses, everyone’s a sex offender.
Just ban the sales of pervert glasses, period.
It’ll accomplish the same thing, but be a lot easier legally.
But that’s their whole demographic.
A completely unenforceable idea driven by moral panic. We’re already seeing plenty of cheap ones on temu, and other more covert types of cameras have been available for years. (Look up pen cameras on Amazon, you’ll look at anyone with a pen in their shirt pocket very differently for the rest of your life)
Not to mention there’s already open source 3d printed smart glasses. Which means this would no doubt lead to calls for ID checks to buy a 3d printer.
Rise up.
Good thing they won’t be able to buy used.
/S
Uh oh, Mark’s about to lose his glasses.
They gonna ban the usage in cinemas, then super markets, then the gyms, then they gonna ban guys to buy them, ban dogs to buy them, ban…
They gonna “ban” everything else but the glasses selling itself… Can’t touch big corpos you know…
See, the whole joke was that Mark was the sex offender. It was a bit of a sideways jab and can be missed.
But then they won’t have any customers.
Buying and using, if it should make sense.
deleted by creator
Can’t ever be enforced until the largest list of the most depraved sex offenders on the planet can be “permabanned”
I would agree only if the responsibility to not carry smart glasses is on the offender only, so vendors wouldn’t have to check their ID, but the perp could be arrested and charged for having them.
