blind people are actually decently assisted by smart glasses. it’s just a shame they’re mostly used by perverts. there should be a state-sanctioned version only for blind people, with limited features, and an open weights AI model hosted somewhere in the same country with data not used for training and such.
Cameras have existed for decades, right? And it’s been legal in many places to take videos of whatever in public that whole time. But Y’know what’s not legal? Upskirts shots, down blouse shots, recording others in the bathroom, and more.
Why does the camera being on your face somehow make this form factor worse than a GoPro on your forehead, or a phone in your shirt pocket?
I quite seriously do not understand why every other previous hardware capable of recording was fine, but glasses are where we draw the line as perverted.
I personally say jack up the repercussions if you feel the need, but don’t ban a hammer just because it can be used to break a window.
it’s much more innocuous, to the point that many people can’t even tell you’re recording or wearing anything special that’s sending your image directly to facebook, especially if you drill out the notification light (which many perverts do do)
generally here in germany there’s a right to privacy if a person is your primary subject, even in public. you need their consent. there’s a difference between people being in the background and only incidentally and going up to people and “appreciating” them with a recording that facebook sees and also the whole world sees because you post it online as a way to signify your power over innocent women
But there are many cameras that do this already. Cameras that go in your button hole, pen cameras, even your cell phone, and most of them have no indication they are recording at all.
I’ve mentioned it before, but when I’m shopping for something for my spouse, i often FaceTime them and just put my phone with the camera facing outward in my shirt pocket, no one has ever given it a second look because it’s just a mundane thing to do, no one thinks it might be recording.
Thats why I feel like this is the tech equivalent to banning hammers. If someone wants to smash a window, they can use any number of implements. Banning a hammer does nothing but hurt people who have legitimate need of a hammer.
smart glasses are not hammers. aside from the disability aid angle, they are primarily used by perverts for perverted use cases, and facebook wants to double down on that angle with face recognition, so they know their audience.
if these were prescribed by a doctor I would react very differently
I’m staunchly against normalizing being recorded all the time in public
You can’t think of a single non-pervert, non-accessibility use for these?
Meta bullshit aside, because they obviously know exactly who they are catering to and it’s unfortunate. Recording lectures, AI (not LLM) identification of works of art at a museum, to the meter directions in areas with bad GPS data, recording a protest, recording police interactions, streaming hardware demos, and more. Anything you can currently legitimately record, but it’s hands free so you don’t need to sit there and frame the image.
Add in some lenses that can display instead of just correct your prescription? You’ve now moved past simply recording, and into augmented reality where information can be layered on top of your vision.
Just because you can’t think of a legit use doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. You can use a wrench to drive a nail in, but the proper tool is still the hammer.
Edit: Hell, I’d love to be able to kick off a recording when playing with the younger kids in the family. They see a phone out in front of you recording and want you to show them things, but glasses are just glasses.
Speaking as someone currently living in the US, around here you have zero right to privacy in public places, or places that can be seen from public places. Like, to a fucked up level. I could stand at the bottom of your driveway recording through your bedroom window, and it would be legal.
Now, do I think that is good? No. In my opinion it’s taken things to an extreme.
But I also don’t think I should have the power to run over to a tourist and demand they delete their photo because I happened to be in the background.
Is there a middle ground? Absolutely. But that middle ground is where I think the majority of smart glasses users will fall when they hit critical mass.
It’s already illegal to do… illegal things. Why are we making them “doubly illegal” in the hopes that somehow the bad guys are going to listen this time? This isn’t like guns where we are talking about regulating every camera, it’s like banning a desert eagle and calling it a job well done.
Edit: Last sentence is weird but I can’t think of how to reword it this late at night, I hope it makes some sense at least.
i personally enjoy my privacy rights. it’s not like police here don’t use for example dashcam footage. they do. so our privacy rights are already sometimes being ignored in favor of practicality. but glassholes go a step too far. i do not want to be surveilled by a private company 24/7. i do not want male-to-male transgender (a looksmaxxer) chad broski to record women without their consent and then post the video online as power signaling, and to goon over it. make it a free and democratic association using open source hardware and code, and open weights models hosted in the respective country with strong privacy guarantees, and I’m maybe on board again. roll it out very slowly, address issues as they come up and don’t make the product even worse for privacy before regulations can step in, only to call it inevitable and the future and thus regulation-proof when the law has time to catch up. legal repercussions should be severe, as you are violating a fundamental human right.
blind people are actually decently assisted by smart glasses. it’s just a shame they’re mostly used by perverts. there should be a state-sanctioned version only for blind people, with limited features, and an open weights AI model hosted somewhere in the same country with data not used for training and such.
I’m still not convinced.
Cameras have existed for decades, right? And it’s been legal in many places to take videos of whatever in public that whole time. But Y’know what’s not legal? Upskirts shots, down blouse shots, recording others in the bathroom, and more.
Why does the camera being on your face somehow make this form factor worse than a GoPro on your forehead, or a phone in your shirt pocket?
I quite seriously do not understand why every other previous hardware capable of recording was fine, but glasses are where we draw the line as perverted.
I personally say jack up the repercussions if you feel the need, but don’t ban a hammer just because it can be used to break a window.
it’s much more innocuous, to the point that many people can’t even tell you’re recording or wearing anything special that’s sending your image directly to facebook, especially if you drill out the notification light (which many perverts do do)
generally here in germany there’s a right to privacy if a person is your primary subject, even in public. you need their consent. there’s a difference between people being in the background and only incidentally and going up to people and “appreciating” them with a recording that facebook sees and also the whole world sees because you post it online as a way to signify your power over innocent women
But there are many cameras that do this already. Cameras that go in your button hole, pen cameras, even your cell phone, and most of them have no indication they are recording at all.
I’ve mentioned it before, but when I’m shopping for something for my spouse, i often FaceTime them and just put my phone with the camera facing outward in my shirt pocket, no one has ever given it a second look because it’s just a mundane thing to do, no one thinks it might be recording.
Thats why I feel like this is the tech equivalent to banning hammers. If someone wants to smash a window, they can use any number of implements. Banning a hammer does nothing but hurt people who have legitimate need of a hammer.
smart glasses are not hammers. aside from the disability aid angle, they are primarily used by perverts for perverted use cases, and facebook wants to double down on that angle with face recognition, so they know their audience.
if these were prescribed by a doctor I would react very differently
I’m staunchly against normalizing being recorded all the time in public
You can’t think of a single non-pervert, non-accessibility use for these?
Meta bullshit aside, because they obviously know exactly who they are catering to and it’s unfortunate. Recording lectures, AI (not LLM) identification of works of art at a museum, to the meter directions in areas with bad GPS data, recording a protest, recording police interactions, streaming hardware demos, and more. Anything you can currently legitimately record, but it’s hands free so you don’t need to sit there and frame the image.
Add in some lenses that can display instead of just correct your prescription? You’ve now moved past simply recording, and into augmented reality where information can be layered on top of your vision.
Just because you can’t think of a legit use doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. You can use a wrench to drive a nail in, but the proper tool is still the hammer.
Edit: Hell, I’d love to be able to kick off a recording when playing with the younger kids in the family. They see a phone out in front of you recording and want you to show them things, but glasses are just glasses.
if violating privacy rights was so important then it should still not be done by facebook
Speaking as someone currently living in the US, around here you have zero right to privacy in public places, or places that can be seen from public places. Like, to a fucked up level. I could stand at the bottom of your driveway recording through your bedroom window, and it would be legal.
Now, do I think that is good? No. In my opinion it’s taken things to an extreme.
But I also don’t think I should have the power to run over to a tourist and demand they delete their photo because I happened to be in the background.
Is there a middle ground? Absolutely. But that middle ground is where I think the majority of smart glasses users will fall when they hit critical mass.
It’s already illegal to do… illegal things. Why are we making them “doubly illegal” in the hopes that somehow the bad guys are going to listen this time? This isn’t like guns where we are talking about regulating every camera, it’s like banning a desert eagle and calling it a job well done.
Edit: Last sentence is weird but I can’t think of how to reword it this late at night, I hope it makes some sense at least.
i personally enjoy my privacy rights. it’s not like police here don’t use for example dashcam footage. they do. so our privacy rights are already sometimes being ignored in favor of practicality. but glassholes go a step too far. i do not want to be surveilled by a private company 24/7. i do not want male-to-male transgender (a looksmaxxer) chad broski to record women without their consent and then post the video online as power signaling, and to goon over it. make it a free and democratic association using open source hardware and code, and open weights models hosted in the respective country with strong privacy guarantees, and I’m maybe on board again. roll it out very slowly, address issues as they come up and don’t make the product even worse for privacy before regulations can step in, only to call it inevitable and the future and thus regulation-proof when the law has time to catch up. legal repercussions should be severe, as you are violating a fundamental human right.