• Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    imagine being someone who just escaped a very violent situation and they need to stay safe and off the internet

    then this shit happens

  • arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    It’s not just that people are “perverts”, it’s that they’re wearing a camera on their face constantly filming people who have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Even in public most countries would protect that expectation in a lot of cases.

    So unless somebody wants to be violently assaulted and their glasses ripped and smashed off their face, then it might be best to not buy them at all, or only wear them in private.

  • korazail@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The real issue in my mind is privacy and autonomy. I want to be able to walk around without the expectation that I’m recorded. I’m male and don’t have the same the impact from the creep-factor, and absolutely get it, but the implications are larger than dudes looking at women.

    Big difference from a “I am in public and can be recorded” to a “I am in public and I should expect to be recorded”. Another big step to "that recording is on a mega-corp server and can be viewed, reviewed, used as training data, cross-referenced, and otherwise processed without my consent because the person recording me consented; I really think this is the the crux, as I can have a tacit approval to be recorded by walking to a store, but I haven’t given any approval for my likeness, my position, my emotions, etc to be recorded by walking down a street. A TV show using unsuspecting public will get people to sign waivers granting limited rights to their footage afterwards, or blur faces – or did – before retaining and publishing.

    I walk into a grocery store and I can expect that they have a CCTV (note the CLOSED CIRCUIT part) system to be able to review what happened in the case of a robbery or whatever. The tech of my childhood meant that the store had a stack of VHS tapes, or maybe DVD/HD/SSD that rotated and could hold (lets way exaggerate) a decade of footage. A decade after I left the store, there was no record I was there – maybe a receipt if I used a card, but I don’t actually know the PCI retention requirements. With cheap storage and 3rd-party cloud-hosted camera systems, the business no longer owns the records of my presence, and has only a data retention ‘agreement’ with the provider. I didn’t agree to my footage being used for any purpose other than the one implicit for safety/loss-prevention by visiting the store. Any use beyond that should be unreasonable search and seizure, but it’s not being done by the government, so isn’t illegal or something I could sue over.

    Very similar situation to Flock/generic-ALPR-esq cameras. The trend used to be that unless you were somehow a person-of-note that you had effective anonymity in public: It took resources to monitor an individual’s movements, facial expressions, actions, etc. It no longer does, and so all this is effectively captured and stored in perpetuity. The real problem is that it’s everywhere. Good luck finding a grocery store that doesn’t have some cloud-provider surveillance. Good luck finding a gas station that doesn’t. Good luck even driving to a specific store that isn’t recording you constantly because you pass several cameras on the way and some are specifically designed to track your movements.

    Bringing it home to the current topic of ‘smart’ glasses. I haven’t consented to being recorded by random person walking down the street with Meta’s camera on their face. Meta has no ethical rights to my “content”, regardless of whether the owner of the glasses has agreed to give Meta a license to their video as part of setting up the glasses. Ethical vs Legal, but we can keep pushing back.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but this shit is pervasive and won’t stop until we force it.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Being accidentally recorded in the background of someone’s photo or video is one thing, and it happens all the time, that is fine

    But we all know it doesn’t end there.

    These glasses allow secret recording

    Of your children at the playground

    Of your wife and children at the beach

    Of your wife and you at a nude beach

    Then all the videos will be picked up by Facebook and fed into their AI. your kids, your family, you, will forcibly be used for AI proposes, you will also be identified, your locations will be stored with it and sold to the highest bidder. Your facial expressions will be determined, what you all were wearing, what you were doing. All of it will be not used but abused to hell and back

    If I see such glasses making a recording of me and or my family that will be the end of those glasses

  • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    Others have said it better than I ever could, but in my own words, even IF every person who bought these was the epitome of the highest moral and ethical standards, I would still be uncomfortable due to the way-too-high possibility of them being ‘hacked’ remotely which would still have the potential to destroy lives

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    “There are a lot of times where it’s not appropriate to wear cameras on your face”. When is it ever appropriate? Try walking around pointing your cellphone at people’s faces all the time and see what happens.

  • chewypoops@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Look, I actually want smart glasses, but there is absolutely no reason for there to be cameras in them.

    Just give me a HUD so I can follow transit directions or something. I’m not trying to take creepshots.

    What really frustrates me is that governments and big business have normalized surveillance everywhere, and now big business is basically selling wearable spyware, and this is all quite egregious.

    But, one of the biggest ways to combat this is with “sousveillance”, or the surveillance of oneself. This has proven to be quite effective for motorists who own dashcams, and could be useful other places as well. But AI-peddling billionaires have ruined the reputation of that kind of thing entirely to the point where even open source variants of this tech will be rejected by the public.

    So businesses, the government, and the police have the right, and in many cases the obligation to record your every move in public, but you aren’t allowed to record your own surroundings in return.

  • nadram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    394
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Reminds me of Google glass or whatever it was called. It’s not that people aren’t ready, it’s just a bad idea

        • PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          I used to support the Glass team at Google. I felt so bad watching them destroy the team after Sergey influence plummeted after he was caught cheating. They just slowly moved everyone to different projects. They had super stars on that team.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      119
      ·
      2 days ago

      I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.

      And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn’t resist.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        76
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn’t try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.

        And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here’s this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on “glasses with cameras” and people still didn’t want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?

        • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not everything.

          They should have gone full OG instagram and make the glasses look like a pair of old school Polaroid cameras that even spit out the picture.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Eh, even the guy in the video mentions the distribution being a factor in the hype dying down. I think with a bigger distribution they could’ve worked better, the main issue with the Meta ones is that they’re basically made to record stuff inconspicuously and that’s freaking creepy.

      • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        2 days ago

        90% of the point of these things is having AI analyze what you are looking at (and also monetize it with ads etc).

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 days ago

          I honestly don’t think so. I think they’re up there, but tech “enthusiasts” (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They’re happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.

          • Dultas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah, I’d consider myself a bit of a tech enthusiast but I’d never buy a closed source product like smart glasses. I have looked a little into Mentra glasses as it’s open source and it looks like you might be able to stand up your own backend.

            It would in no way be an everyday wear for me though. I’d probably only ever wear it for outdoor activities. But honestly a GoPro or equivalent with a harness would probably be a better option for that.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            creeps, and creep supporters, ok. anyone giving meta money is at least creep adjacent if not a creep themselves.

      • applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        these are the same people who would unironically make the torment nexus, firmly believing that they will do it right and it will be good this time

      • skribe@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not for the first time. Metaverse failed for all the same reasons that Second Life did: it’s a solution to a problem that most people don’t have. Except Second Life - which still exists and supposedly is far more active than during its heyday - only cost the merest fraction compared to the Metaverse.

        As for the Spybans, there were a couple of short films released around 2010 that predicted the privacy issues linking AR with realtime social networking would bring. So it’s not a new idea. Unfortunately, both films were taken down soon after because they were deemed too disturbing.

        And yet, here we are.

      • kboos1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Needed the data, if you’re phone is always in your pocket then it’s really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions

      • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The trouble is, half the cool shit that AR can do requires some sort of optical sensor to pull off. If you want it to be anything more than just a smaller cell phone closer to your eye.

        And if course they were compelled to hook it up to their mass surveillance network…

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It wasn’t dumb and they didn’t forget. The frog has simply been sufficiently boiled. Meta sold millions of these. The people complaining are a very small minority.

    • Tim_Bisley@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s annoying how tech bros phrase products and services so that you don’t get to say no, it’s something like not right now or people aren’t ready. Lots of stuff from pop ups for OneDrive in windows to press releases about Google glass. It’s fascist.

      No your product or service is unwanted and no means no.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      True AR? Absolutely not a bad idea, are you kidding me?

      Take out the ability to record stealthily and they’re a great idea. Overlay art on walls, place monitors in your real space, do work on a laptop with the screen off, put directions in the actual world so you’re not looking at a screen, and that just what I can think of off the top of my head.

      Don’t let the tech conglomerates ruin an amazing tech concept.

        • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Vision Pro is as close as we have come, and it is still overpriced, ugly, uncomfortable, and incapable of most basic AR tasks. It can’t identify and track objects in real time, which is the lowest bar for functional AR.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Their form factor still isn’t great from what I understand. The tech isn’t properly caught up to the idea. But once it has, it’s going to be a paradigm shift in the way we interact with the digital world similar to the smart phone.

    • JustEnoughDucks@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      For consumers yes, but an AR glasses for technical workers that (for example with an electrician), you could mark and highlight cables in AR that you are working on/ignoring or being able to auto search and send IC identifications on reverse engineering a PCB would be genuinely useful.

    • k0e3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      By “not ready,” they mean, “not complacent enough.” Fuck the tech bros.

    • ductTapedWindow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Bad enough that Tesla’s are mobile surveillance nodes. Definitely don’t need cameras going indoors everywhere too.

    • hopesdead@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      The problem with Google Glass is that had a form factor which limited what could be done. On top of that it was a beta product and you technically needed to be a developer with I think C language knowledge to be allowed to purchase one. Even if you could buy it the device was like $1,000+ because it wasn’t a consumer ready model.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah the idea was so bad Apple stopped developing future Apple Vision products and pivoted to release an affordable alternative.

        This thread seems to have a whole lot of hopefulness and not much actual data they are going off. If Apple actually launches a good usable pair for a decent price, it will all become “I wish manufacturers never made these” and people yelling pervert at someone on the street will result in them getting sued/arrested/baker acted.

        It’s been 12 years since glass went public, I have to imagine someone figured out decent ways to work the upgrades in hardware since into them.

        2013 version: 45nm Chip made by Texas instruments.

        Any chip from 2026/7 will run laps around it

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        that make sense, why i only saw one person in public once using, so they had to be a tech dev. in any cause it was still considered as a perv glass too, because you could somehow watch porn on it.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      i remember that, the first news of it was it was being used to WATCH PORN. and then i saw a person in a subway once with it, it looks silly and kinda perverty.

  • irate944@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Creeps love an always-on camera that you can wear on your face so that it’s not obvious that you’re filming?

    Who could’ve seen that coming