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.
“I saw all these comments about if you wear those glasses you’re basically a predator or a creep, and I was like, ‘Oh, maybe it’s not a good idea to have those,’” said Kujawa. "I didn’t really think that through all the way… there are a lot of times where it’s not appropriate to wear cameras on your face."
Words to live by.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg remains convinced that smart glasses will eventually replace the smartphone.
Sure, Jan.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg remains convinced that smart glasses will eventually replace the smartphone.
Just a regular reminder that facebook has a massive child sex material trade problem, that they’ve actively done nothing to prevent, but they have called police on reporters reporting on it.
So Zuckerberg wanting his creepnology on every face, in every bathroom, hospital, etc, while he gets a copy of every video, is very much in character
I mean dude was meeting with Epstein so…
he wants to learn what make humans tic so he can mimic and control them.
Yeah having to let the battery die on a patient’s prescription glasses that they needed to like. Not fall down while walking. Was not a fun couple of shifts.
Well, yeah. It starts with people sharing “just family photos,” and the monsters make it a cesspool.
So…
I inherited my grandmother’s house. I’m a heterosexual bachelor, I don’t give a shit about decoration, so the automotive tools and 3D printing detritus, house cat, and electronics shit from about waist down are mine, the artwork and curtains and shit at chest level and above are still my grandmother’s.
Included in this is one of those “one large frame full of a bunch of individual family photos” things that ceased to be manufactured during Dubya’s first term. In it is a picture of a bunch of relatives of mine hanging out in a back yard, the last of whom died last month, a black and white photo of my father when he was 7, a dageurrotype of my great grandfather’s first wedding…
And a polaroid of me, age 2, scrote ass naked, riding Bradley. Who the fuck is Bradley. So, while I was a fetus, my family went to a state fair. My father decided to stop at the carnie section to play ring toss. My hilariously pregnant 5 foot tall mother wanted to play too. So Dad gave her a fistful of rings. And she got one. As my dad tells it, the second my mama cheered, that carnie took the rest of those rings from my father, chucked them in a different, empty basket presumably to inspect them to make sure they are in fact smaller than the neck of the bottles, and begrudgingly told her to pick out one of the hilariously huge stuffed animals on display, and she picked a life-size tiger. On the way back out of the fair, my family walked past a National guard exhibit, including several tanks and armored vehicles. My grandmother, the idiot that decided to carpet my bathroom, noticed the sign next to a particularly large tank-like machine said “Bradley Fighting Vehicle” and she said “Oh how cute, they named it.” And lo the 6 foot long polyester tiger was named Bradley.
Three years later, I got out of a bath tub, and before some toddler sized tighty-whiteys happened I mounted that very tiger like a horse, which amused my father enough to go get the family Instamatic. My grandmother ended up owning the resulting photograph, time makes corpses of us all, I inherited my grandmother’s estate to include a 37 year old picture of my own dick.
So when I build my drinks cabinet intended to go on that wall, and pull down that photo collage and give it to my parents, one of whom was the photographer of several of those family photos, am I going to be arrested for trafficking child porn?
Probably, in Trump’s America.
You write well. Also, is it illegal to possess a naked picture of oneself as a child?
I guess it’s about the risk of someone viewing it sexually.
No, naked photographs of children are not illegal in that context
Heard of a guy with pictures of his kid in the bath. Police investigated and once they realised it was his own kid, no further action.
Might vary based on where you live of course.
I’ll admit at first I thought Bradley was gonna be the carnie. Relieved.
deleted by creator
If they didn’t have a camera they’d be pointless, there’s really no reason to have a screen on your face if it wasn’t to help AR the world.
Which is why it’s going to need an extremely valid reason to use them aside from being a creeper.
I’d use them to subtitle everything because i’m deaf
Yeah I’ve long said these could be a useful accessibility tool for those of us who can’t hear
Not true. I’ve had my eye on a pair for awhile that has no camera, only microphone, but has a HUD. Having navigation, an irl minimap, without having to keep your phone out is nice and has some actual positive safety implications. Also, this might mean less to Americans, but as someone living in Europe, having in line translation is really, really cool. Could almost sell it on that alone. I’ve heard some deaf folks are also using it to help understand people by augmenting their lip reading (which usually doesn’t get all of the information across by itself) with summaries that the mic picked up.
I’ve only held off because the pair I was looking at seem like it isn’t quite there yet in reliability, but there are definitely some pretty big use cases I can think of. I would 100% get some of these without a camera.
Wondering how we’re doing on echolocation or if sensors that are less invasive but still useful might be tolerated in public. The device might identify objects generically… Maybe there’s some middleground between useful and perverted.
there’s really no reason to have a screen on your face
Look around. People have a screen on their face 24/7. Currently they need their hand to hold it there.
Maybe you mean there is no need for a camera on your face. That I agree with.
Lidar, rather than a camera. Allows it to create a 3d model of what’s in front of it without being able to take pictures itself
So there are certainly some valid use cases. They could be useful for surgeries, engineering design work, surveying, etc. None of these have you wearing them all the time or in social areas through. It’s a niche product they need to focus on those markets and stop trying to force mass adoption. It’s the same as AI.
Get away with watching YT at work? Reclaim hours of my life, that’s my end goal.
deleted by creator
There’s a YouTube guy that made his own and uses it as a teleprompter during his videos. Certainly a niche use case.
Not these devices but Zach Freedman of Voidstar Labs uses a single eye display as a teleprompter.
funny, I see it as a privacy nightmare and a tool for the worst kind of creep.
deleted by creator
good for you.
There is no market for such niches.
deleted by creator
I live next to a beach. I don’t think I will ever visit the popular areas again if these things become common.
Fortunately you only need to walk 60 seconds east/west of a car park to get away from most people and the coastline goes on for miles.
Maybe without cameras? I can see the use at work.
They will, unfortunately. I hate these things but I know that as soon as influencers make them cool, the shame will go away.
I really want to be wrong about this.
Shame is a greatly underrated emotion.
Specifically identifying the “pervert glasses” as “pervert Meta Ray-bans” would kill these products even faster. Associating Ray-bans with perversion would surely be a deal breaker.
“Pedo glasses” has the least syllables. Doesn’t have to be accurate just has to make people feel disgusted at themselves for wearing them.
Start posting “No Meta Sunglasses” signs around playgrounds, schools, and water parks.
Trench Coats and unmarked vans are already synonymous with sexual predators. We got this.
Can we not dilute how horrific pedophilia is with overuse in an unrelated situation?
Yeah, I don’t want “pedo” to become as diluted as “rape” is now please.
not really, since Zuck has hanged out with epstein among others in a picture, and likely more than once.
Pedo Raybans has the same number of syllables
The “Rape Bans”
Oakley makes them now as well. Ray-ban and Oakley are owned by the same company.
All sunglasses are owned by Luxottica
All prescription glasses are owned by Luxottica. Remember when the DOJ broke up gouging monopolies?
close to it.
It would likely invite a lawsuit of some sort.
woulndt it be pretty obvious if someone is wearing those glasses, plus its not like the camera is hidden.
Good
“A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product.”
Ruined? They’re using it for it’s designed purpose…
I just don’t understand why they even tried. Google already proved in 2013 that people think you’re an asshole for wearing things like this, even having the term “glasshole” come about.
Good.
This is the glasshole stigma all over again
Good. Good. Let your hate become your strength
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.
How do we feel about ‘pedofocals’?
“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.
I’m never buying Ray Bans again. I don’t want to be associated, fuck Ray Bans for taking that cash.
Excellent news
The life enshitificator got enshitified itself
