FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
57% Positive
Analyzed from 1492 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#glasses#don#cameras#more#meta#weird#public#recording#someone#thing
Discussion (48 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED.
So DEF CON has restrictions for photography, but as long as you do not hide your smart glasses' activity LED, you can just walk around and record everything as audio and video?
Full text at https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html:
«Smart glasses and other devices that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not, are prohibited at DEF CON, they erode trust and invade people's privacy.»
(Last paragraph. The other paragraphs refer to photography.)
Not at DEF CON, no.
But the camera takes this to extreme anti-social levels.
Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold bulky camera gear, or at least a phone-sized device to do it)
Of course you have the legal right to film people in public spaces in many jurisdictions, but you're likely to be socially ostracized for it (and IMO rightfully so).
I don't think that this can be the main issue, given how nobody really cares about security cameras in public spaces or all the cameras modern cars can come with, nevermind dash cams.
Someone filming/shooting in a park with a kit 18-55mm lens is fine. Swap that with a bulky 300mm or more and you are bound to get some questions asked.
A content creator casually shooting content in a mall is fine but if you start interviewing people, aiming your camera directly at them, it's at least common courtesy if not legal requirement to ask for permission.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't mind someone wearing these creeper specs in public but if they talk to me or if we eat at the same table, I would expect the courtesy of them putting the glasses away.
I definetely don't want a camera in there.
Not sure if such a beast exists. But due to Meta/Google screwing up with cameras, I may never get my display glasses.
But they will come and will get better. Apple is also supposedly still working on some and they'll likely try to get rid of the "camera issue". Or maybe they'll try to make it the new normal. But they already exist and there will be more of them in the future - with and without cameras.
But they look less stupid than Google Glass did and even if they didn't look stupid, people would still consider them "pervert glasses".
In fact, I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. The less immediately obvious they are, the more you seem like a creepy pervert for using them when the core problem is people don't want you filming them without their knowledge or consent.
They don't care if it succeeds. They just don't want to lose.
But the newer ones use cameras for 6DoF tracking too so they're even more likely to be viewed as perv glasses. I hope they keep making ones without, I never use the tracking anyway.
The only thing I object to is the facebook association.
That "hilarious" and embarrassing misspeak or fall becomes a lot less so when it's a dime a dozen.
It's weird because it is (right now), not because it's some fundamentally weird thing ordained that way forever during the big bang or whatever.
Like, people don't like being watched when working, yet they'll sometimes outright forget they're screensharing. I know I do at least.
If everyone did it, welcome to 1984 beyond Orwell's wildest imagination, where the Flock cameras have legs and look human. Who needs an elaborate entrapment operation when you can observe up close how someone twitches upon mention of Dear Leader's name?
You are thinking of a very shallow America's Funniest Home Videos scenario without considering that there is a lot of daily-life scenarios that rely on the assumption that you are not being filmed by some rando.
- In a lot of places where there is still stigma on various health issues, this kind of implicit privacy could be the difference between people seeking help or not.
- We give off a lot of small but probably "confidential" signals just because we can reasonably assume we are not being recorded. From simple allusions during casual conversation to maybe a quick still frame of someone's notes. What would've been an innocuous statement could become NDA violations when recorded at the fidelity usually reserved for deposition hearings.
- And speaking of innocuous, as anyone who's spent any length of time in the internet would know, it's so easy to take thirty seconds of a two-hour conversation out of context. Now you are giving everyone an eat-all-you-can buffet of your life to take out of context. Company valuations have been decided from less.
All in all, these perv glasses would make society more guarded and less open, and that in an age when people already have a hard time forming relationships.
!!!Exactly!!!
If Apple comes up with smart glasses then user privacy will be job one. For meta it's all about collecting data to sell ads. Period.