4 ms·

I know someone who has a pair and authentically loves them. He's blind. It's easy to pooh-pooh their utility if someone doesn't need assistance to know what's i

I know someone who has a pair and authentically loves them. He's blind. It's easy to pooh-pooh their utility if someone doesn't need assistance to know what's in the room with them, but hopefully we can all understand the clear value proposition for those who do.

JohnFen 2y ago
I understand the value proposition. My problem is that people using them are offloading the cost onto others who have not agreed to be so exposed. If it were possible to use something like these without throwing everyone they interact with under the bus in terms of privacy and security, I'd have no problem with them.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
  I guess I'm not comfortable with the idea that a blind person should proverbially "take one for the team" while everyone else should not. An equivalent device not attached to meta would be great. Does one exist?
  - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
    Yes - xreal I use mine all the time for mostly watching movies or gaming but sometimes work They are legitimately one of the best devices I have and I’ve been in AR a long time
    - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
      AFAICT, none of the XReal glasses have an integrated camera, and the accessory camera on their website just says "coming soon". Without a camera, it's not suitable for the purpose.
    - wlesieutre 2y ago
      That’s a totally different product. The Meta glasses don’t have a screen, only camera paired with voice UI. If we’re looking for a head-mounted device that’s useful for blind people, taking away the camera and intelligence and replacing them with a screen definitely is not it. You’re losing the useful parts and replacing them with a useless one.
    - Philpax 2y ago
      You've suggested a device that takes away the one thing they need (the ability to perceive the world without sight) and replaced it with the one thing they don't need (the ability to overlay content onto sight).
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    Why is it any better to force everyone else to "take one for the team"? What I object to is other people forcing me to be exposed to threats against my will.
- wilg 2y ago
  I mean there is no cost for others, though. You don't have a right to not be "exposed". If you think the way we handle laws around photography or whatever should be changed, we have a whole democracy for brokering that. (Or at least we did until very recently.)
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    You're arguing legalities. That's orthogonal to my objection. Plenty of bad things are legal.
    - wilg 2y ago
      You didn't really specify what's bad, and I don't think the current law on photography (or whatever you're worried about) is an issue so I'm arguing both ethics/morals and legalities.
walterbell 2y ago
Value to vision-impaired users would increase with an SDK, https://communityforums.atmeta.com/t5/General-VR-MR-Development/Suggestion-for-Developing-an-SDK-for-Meta-Ray-ban-Glasses/td-p/1196341/page/2 https://communityforums.atmeta.com/t5/General-VR-MR-Developm...
- maeil 2y ago
  The second they make this and make it useful in any way, immediately the apps people create will lay bare exactly how bad of a privacy invasion they are, tons of bad press ensuing. It's definitely not technical hurdles preventing them from making one.
  - walterbell 2y ago
    Already done without the SDK, https://www.engadget.com/wearables/students-used-metas-smart-glasses-to-automatically-dox-strangers-via-instagram-streams-170228496.html https://www.engadget.com/wearables/students-used-metas-smart... Censorship and alignment (speech, LLMs, glasses, drones, ..) rarely stops negative scenarios, but it slows positive scenarios from existence and competition with negative scenarios. They did partner with BMW, CMU and some universities, https://www.projectaria.com/research-kit/ https://www.projectaria.com/research-kit/
    - maeil 2y ago
      An engadget article is a different order of magnitude than MSM. Of course tech people have always known what they're really like.
      - walterbell 2y ago
        How about Fox News? https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facial-recognition-glasses-turn-everyday-life-creepy-privacy-nightmare https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facial-recognition-glasses-turn...
- BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
itishappy 2y ago
I get it, but I'm still uncomfortable with it. The same value proposition surely applies to locking GPS collars. A clear value for individuals managing dementia patients, but it's a privacy nightmare for everyone and most of the customers aren't nurses. Accessibility doesn't need to come at the expense of privacy.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  Dont sorry. Accessibility os DEI, so i expect them to only have privacy implications
- gretch 2y ago
  There’s a clear difference in buying them for your own use and buying them for someone else: consent. (And even giving them to someone else could still include consent)
  - itishappy 2y ago
    That's exactly my point. These glasses affect more than just the wearer. Wearing these glasses exposes others. I see the argument in public (thought I'm uncomfortable with that as well), but this affects other situations too. I'm not going to ask my blind friend to remove his accessibility device when he enters my home, but the same can't be true of my business. Can't have protected personal, health, financial, or corporate information delivered directly to Meta. That's probably the crux of it. These aren't just vision aids, they're cloud-centric data-harvesting Meta products. So I'm not arguing against the tech, but I am expressing discomfort. If I knew someone who wore these, even as an accessibility aid, I'd feel uncomfortable around them.
    - adrian_b 2y ago
      I do not agree that others are exposed in a way that can be compared with how they are exposed to hidden spy cameras. Whenever you are in a place where there are other humans around, you are exposed, regardless if they have cameras or not. Just counting on the fact that most humans have poor photographic memory, so they might forget what they have seen at you, cannot be claimed to be enough to consider that you are not exposed. Whatever you do not want to be remembered, you should not do in the presence of humans. Wherever in your home or at your business there is something that you would not want remembered by others, you should not bring any guests, regardless if they carry cameras or not. If there exists any "protected personal, health, financial, or corporate information" that you do not consider public, you should not show that to your guests, regardless if they carry cameras or not. I agree however that any cameras hidden wherever you believe that nobody sees you, are an assault on privacy, unlike cameras carried by humans, who you must expect to be able to see and remember you (or any of your private information that is visible), even without cameras. Therefore I believe that in the majority of situations, restrictions on the carrying of cameras, including such as the Meta glasses, do not make sense. Either the presence of the untrusted humans must be completely forbidden, or wherever they are allowed they should be able to carry their cameras or glasses with them. One of the acceptable exceptions is for preventing the recording of shows, where even if I consider that it is an abuse to forbid recording for personal use, I agree that otherwise it would be difficult to discover later whether such recordings are in fact distributed commercially. For a visit in a company however, camera restrictions are useless, because usually far less of the private information of a company is valuable than its management or its lawyers believe. The really valuable information is usually small enough to be easily remembered by a competent human who has seen it, with no need to record it with a camera. Information leaks must be prevented by allowing guest access only in selected areas and by showing them only the information that must be shared with them, not by frisking them for cameras.
barnabyjones 2y ago
Interesting, I've been thinking for a long time these would be most useful to the hearing impaired if they get a simple text display going. Some people just simply avoid social situations because hearing aids aren't good enough, having subtitles wherever you go would be really revolutionary for them. Same for traveling.

JohnFen 2y ago

I understand the value proposition. My problem is that people using them are offloading the cost onto others who have not agreed to be so exposed. If it were possible to use something like these without throwing everyone they interact with under the bus in terms of privacy and security, I'd have no problem with them.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
I guess I'm not comfortable with the idea that a blind person should proverbially "take one for the team" while everyone else should not. An equivalent device not attached to meta would be great. Does one exist?
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  Yes - xreal I use mine all the time for mostly watching movies or gaming but sometimes work They are legitimately one of the best devices I have and I’ve been in AR a long time
  - BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
    AFAICT, none of the XReal glasses have an integrated camera, and the accessory camera on their website just says "coming soon". Without a camera, it's not suitable for the purpose.
  - wlesieutre 2y ago
    That’s a totally different product. The Meta glasses don’t have a screen, only camera paired with voice UI. If we’re looking for a head-mounted device that’s useful for blind people, taking away the camera and intelligence and replacing them with a screen definitely is not it. You’re losing the useful parts and replacing them with a useless one.
  - Philpax 2y ago
    You've suggested a device that takes away the one thing they need (the ability to perceive the world without sight) and replaced it with the one thing they don't need (the ability to overlay content onto sight).
- JohnFen 2y ago
  Why is it any better to force everyone else to "take one for the team"? What I object to is other people forcing me to be exposed to threats against my will.
wilg 2y ago
I mean there is no cost for others, though. You don't have a right to not be "exposed". If you think the way we handle laws around photography or whatever should be changed, we have a whole democracy for brokering that. (Or at least we did until very recently.)
- JohnFen 2y ago
  You're arguing legalities. That's orthogonal to my objection. Plenty of bad things are legal.
  - wilg 2y ago
    You didn't really specify what's bad, and I don't think the current law on photography (or whatever you're worried about) is an issue so I'm arguing both ethics/morals and legalities.

walterbell 2y ago

Value to vision-impaired users would increase with an SDK, https://communityforums.atmeta.com/t5/General-VR-MR-Development/Suggestion-for-Developing-an-SDK-for-Meta-Ray-ban-Glasses/td-p/1196341/page/2 https://communityforums.atmeta.com/t5/General-VR-MR-Developm...

maeil 2y ago
The second they make this and make it useful in any way, immediately the apps people create will lay bare exactly how bad of a privacy invasion they are, tons of bad press ensuing. It's definitely not technical hurdles preventing them from making one.
- walterbell 2y ago
  Already done without the SDK, https://www.engadget.com/wearables/students-used-metas-smart-glasses-to-automatically-dox-strangers-via-instagram-streams-170228496.html https://www.engadget.com/wearables/students-used-metas-smart... Censorship and alignment (speech, LLMs, glasses, drones, ..) rarely stops negative scenarios, but it slows positive scenarios from existence and competition with negative scenarios. They did partner with BMW, CMU and some universities, https://www.projectaria.com/research-kit/ https://www.projectaria.com/research-kit/
  - maeil 2y ago
    An engadget article is a different order of magnitude than MSM. Of course tech people have always known what they're really like.
    - walterbell 2y ago
      How about Fox News? https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facial-recognition-glasses-turn-everyday-life-creepy-privacy-nightmare https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facial-recognition-glasses-turn...
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

itishappy 2y ago

I get it, but I'm still uncomfortable with it. The same value proposition surely applies to locking GPS collars. A clear value for individuals managing dementia patients, but it's a privacy nightmare for everyone and most of the customers aren't nurses. Accessibility doesn't need to come at the expense of privacy.

cyanydeez 2y ago
Dont sorry. Accessibility os DEI, so i expect them to only have privacy implications
gretch 2y ago
There’s a clear difference in buying them for your own use and buying them for someone else: consent. (And even giving them to someone else could still include consent)
- itishappy 2y ago
  That's exactly my point. These glasses affect more than just the wearer. Wearing these glasses exposes others. I see the argument in public (thought I'm uncomfortable with that as well), but this affects other situations too. I'm not going to ask my blind friend to remove his accessibility device when he enters my home, but the same can't be true of my business. Can't have protected personal, health, financial, or corporate information delivered directly to Meta. That's probably the crux of it. These aren't just vision aids, they're cloud-centric data-harvesting Meta products. So I'm not arguing against the tech, but I am expressing discomfort. If I knew someone who wore these, even as an accessibility aid, I'd feel uncomfortable around them.
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    I do not agree that others are exposed in a way that can be compared with how they are exposed to hidden spy cameras. Whenever you are in a place where there are other humans around, you are exposed, regardless if they have cameras or not. Just counting on the fact that most humans have poor photographic memory, so they might forget what they have seen at you, cannot be claimed to be enough to consider that you are not exposed. Whatever you do not want to be remembered, you should not do in the presence of humans. Wherever in your home or at your business there is something that you would not want remembered by others, you should not bring any guests, regardless if they carry cameras or not. If there exists any "protected personal, health, financial, or corporate information" that you do not consider public, you should not show that to your guests, regardless if they carry cameras or not. I agree however that any cameras hidden wherever you believe that nobody sees you, are an assault on privacy, unlike cameras carried by humans, who you must expect to be able to see and remember you (or any of your private information that is visible), even without cameras. Therefore I believe that in the majority of situations, restrictions on the carrying of cameras, including such as the Meta glasses, do not make sense. Either the presence of the untrusted humans must be completely forbidden, or wherever they are allowed they should be able to carry their cameras or glasses with them. One of the acceptable exceptions is for preventing the recording of shows, where even if I consider that it is an abuse to forbid recording for personal use, I agree that otherwise it would be difficult to discover later whether such recordings are in fact distributed commercially. For a visit in a company however, camera restrictions are useless, because usually far less of the private information of a company is valuable than its management or its lawyers believe. The really valuable information is usually small enough to be easily remembered by a competent human who has seen it, with no need to record it with a camera. Information leaks must be prevented by allowing guest access only in selected areas and by showing them only the information that must be shared with them, not by frisking them for cameras.

barnabyjones 2y ago

Interesting, I've been thinking for a long time these would be most useful to the hearing impaired if they get a simple text display going. Some people just simply avoid social situations because hearing aids aren't good enough, having subtitles wherever you go would be really revolutionary for them. Same for traveling.