13 ms·
Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
- pier25 8mo agoI really hope these flop and don’t become mainstream. It would be a surveillance and privacy dystopian nightmare.
- msy 8mo agoYou would have to have been hiding under an extremely large rock not to assume this given the technology involved and Meta's overtly and consistently anti-privacy stances and history.
- http-teapot 8mo ago[inserts image of a smiling Mark Zuckerberg walking in the middle of unsuspecting attendees wearing VR headsets] That image always felt dystopian to me
- argomo 8mo agoWhile true, that doesn't make it acceptable. In a functioning society, companies would be punished harshly for this behaviour.
- Aeolun 8mo ago> In a functioning society Have you been alive for the past decade?
- DonHopkins 8mo agoObviously he thinks society is functioning for HIM just fine. What's your problem?
- autoexec 8mo agoIt's because they never have been meaningfully punished and won't be that this happens and will continue to happen. Act accordingly.
- latentsea 8mo agoall societies are dysfunctional...
- Havoc 8mo agoBrought to you by the CEO that tapes the webcam on his laptop https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg-tape-webcam-microphone-facebook https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...
- bigyabai 8mo agoI will be genuinely shocked if people aren't taping their smartphone cameras by 2030.
- ge96 8mo agoIt is funny since I wonder when you're looking through say the Google Feed (swipe left on Android devices on home screen) does the camera track your eyes, what you're looking at It does seem harder to tape the phone camera since the in/out motion into your pocket I imagine would remove the tape.
- wongarsu 8mo agoFor the main camera there are cases with sliding covers for many phone models. Marketed for protecting the lens from scratches, but quite effective for privacy as well For the front camera that's a lot more difficult. You could probably modify one of those flexible screen protectors to black out the camera, but it'd be very inconvenient to take off. Maybe there is some niche android phone that offers physical shutters, similar to the ones on Lenovo laptop webcams
- lnrd 8mo agoCameras in phones are pretty much locked up today, assuming you have an updated version of the OS from a respectable manufacturer. Apps will not be able to access the camera feed (or the microphone) without explicit consent and a visual warning. The manufacturer might access it, Apple states they don't, Google and Samsung I'm not sure. A bad actor with 0days might too.
- jiggawatts 8mo ago
- sschueller 8mo agoOf course, why wouldn't they? They do not work without a meta account. /s Is anyone at meta going to be bald accountable? An absolute privacy nightmare especially in places like Switzerland or Germany where recording people (subject focus) even in public is not permitted without consent but you have tourists now showing up everywhere wearing these. The LED is barely visible during the day and some have modified their glasses to disable/remove it.
- aucisson_masque 8mo ago> An absolute privacy nightmare especially in places like Switzerland or Germany where recording people (subject focus) even in public is not permitted That's the prime example of a law that can't be enforced and thus shouldn't exist. You go in town, you can be recorded inadvertantly, as long as it's not some creep stalking you, I say it's fine.
- sschueller 8mo agoIt can and is enforced. Again it's if the person is the focus of your video. If you post a video online of someone's worst day which you decided to film for entertainment, they can legally go after you.
- aucisson_masque 8mo ago> If you post a video online of someone's worst day which you decided to film for entertainment, they can legally go after you. Then,it's stalking and it's different. There are much less case of stalking than people accidentally incorporating other people in their picture frame.
- hrmtst93837 8mo ago[flagged]
- msy 8mo agoI suspect what'll kill these is the same thing that kill google glass - social ostracisation. It's so, so wildly adversarial to effectively shove a recording device in the face of everyone you're interacting with you might as well wear a emergency orange t-shirt with 'verified asshole' written on it.
- unselect5917 8mo ago"People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks." -Mark Zuckerberg, 2004
- webdevver 8mo agooh come on, who of us didn't go through a power-tripping edge lord phase? i too had a community game server once...
- xmx98 8mo agoIt seems his values aren’t much better now. Too bad his company is so successful.
- unselect5917 8mo agoRemember when facebook was busted playing silent audio so the app could stay active in the background? I honestly don't think there's a company I trust less than facebook/meta. And it's because the rot is at the top, and has always been there.
- rationalist 8mo agoNo. I did a search and found this though: https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/22/facebook-says-it-fixed-a-bug-that-caused-silent-audio-to-vampire-your-iphone-battery/ https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/22/facebook-says-it-fixed-a-b... Supposedly it was a bug, but with Facebook, who knows.
- rsynnott 8mo agoAnd if you believe that, you'll believe anything.
- DonHopkins 8mo ago>The other issue, that Facebook was running a silent audio stream in the background, is also called out. Grant says this was unintentional, and that it was not being used to keep the app alive — yet it did as a byproduct of the bug. How much issue tracking and scrum management and engineering work and code review and testing and deployment and maintenance went into accidentally streaming silent audio that you only stop doing after you got caught and have to claim all that successfully tested and deployed work was unintentional, without ever explaining the actual innocuous purpose of streaming silent audio and paying for all that extra bandwidth?
- nothrowaways 8mo agoThe whole project is a Creepy privacy nightmare.
- xmx98 8mo agoOf course! Glasses with cameras are a classic secret spy gadget :)
- majestik 8mo agoIs anyone here actually surprised Meta is recording and reviewing their content? Vote with your dollars people.
- dataflow 8mo agoYes, I'm surprised at this. I would've never expected they would be doing this, and I didn't exactly have high expectations of Meta. This is incredibly invasive and not at all what people expect.
- Aeolun 8mo agoAm I so cynical, or does this sound hopelessly naive? This is exactly what I would expect. Certainly of Meta. Amazon had to go out of their way to reassure people that Siri wasn’t always recording. And I’m still not entirely sure I believe that.
- bdangubic 8mo agoI find it extremely naive too. I expect much worse than this from Meta and I am often amazed at just what it is going to take for people to realize what Meta is and does. I mean it is not like we have 11 million examples of what and who they are. In this story I would have expected additionally that Meta would notice little bit of cellulite in the woman that was changing and then having the employees call her husband to tell them to surprise her with amazing cream he should buy her for their upcoming anniversary (and if this was actually part of the story I would be able to continue on top of this and would not be surprised if true).
- adamwk 8mo agoI am also surprised, but not because I believe Meta to care about the ethics of the whole thing. After all their privacy scandals, I’d assume they’d have policies in place to prevent something that can so easily be leaked. But here we are
- dataflow 8mo agoThe thing is it's not just surprising from a privacy standpoint but also from an engineering standpoint -- this sounds very data-, power-, and storage-intensive, in a device that's very constrained on all sides, so it wouldn't have even occurred to me this was a possibility. When are they even uploading all the videos without blowing through their power budget and internet data limits? Are they heavily compressing it to like one frame per second or something?
- yogorenapan 8mo agoThe annoying thing is that even if you yourself don't use these glasses, as long as people around you do, you are still affected by it. We really need laws to limit always-on recording devices in places where we have an expectation of privacy.
- hollow-moe 8mo ago"But it's the public space you can't expect any kind of privacy there, if you don't want private companies to do biometrics on your face from a rando glasses just don't go out :)" The open air panopticon, where every inmate is also the warden, gov salivates at the idea. (yes, yes, you're very smart, you, the reader: smartphones are already tracking and recording us everywhere. One more device, one more case isn't an issue anymore. So let's just keep adding them instead of trying to address them.)
- xmx98 8mo agoI heard that in Japan phones have an audible shutter sound. Not mandated by law. Though I think that having this in the law is very reasonable. Maybe EU can step up. Taking photos is more fun with the sound too.
- dangus 8mo agoIt’s not one law but it’s essentially a collaborative result of ordinances, manufacturers, and telecom carriers. https://japandaily.jp/why-you-cant-turn-off-the-camera-shutter-sound-in-japan/ https://japandaily.jp/why-you-cant-turn-off-the-camera-shutt...
- lnrd 8mo agoWe need laws and social norms where filming a stranger and uploading it online is considered a serious unacceptable offense regardless of the device. I find it absurd that today is completely acceptable to just film an unaware stranger and put the video online, especially since that the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them.
- 8mo ago
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- aucisson_masque 8mo agoBeside the privacy part, I fail to see what value these glasses bring that a smartphone with a camera can't do already ? And you're still forced to carry a smartphone anyway with these glasses since they require internet connection. Is this fashion, or something I'm not aware of ? They look horrendous to me.
- charcircuit 8mo agoYou can seamlessly take a photos without having to pull your phone out of your pockets and dedicate and arm to filming and you can listen to music without having to touch your phone. The audio recording of videos is 3D and when you play them back it's realistic where the audio is coming from. >since they require internet connection. Only the AI features require internet. You can technically take pictures and video without carrying around your phone, but realistically people are going to carry there phone with them.
- ninininino 8mo agoPOV camera footage without holding your phone out in front of you distracting you from having to look down at your phone instead of up at the thing you're filming? Imagine you want to capture your POV but also want to be present and in the moment, not looking at a 6 inch rectangle screen to check your framing of what you're capturing.
- galleywest200 8mo agoGo-Pro on forehead? Thats what outdoor enthusiasts do. If you need to make room for a headlamp then pin it to your jacket maybe.
- stbtrax 8mo agothis is like telling people who use smartphones to carry a laptop with a cell modem card
- ninininino 8mo agoI'll be sure to strap a GoPro to my forehead on a daily basis so I can take impromptu footage of stuff.
- MerrimanInd 8mo agoI was in engineering school back in ~2012 when Google Glass came out. One of my classmates got hold of a pair when they were still quite uncommon and wore them to an extracurricular club meeting. Within minutes someone made a comment about him wearing the "creeper" glasses and asked if he was filming. He never wore them to the club again. I just don't see a world where that doesn't happen with Meta glasses.
- idontwantthis 8mo agoIt can happen if it’s not easy to tell immediately what they are.
- yonatan8070 8mo agoUnfortunately, the Meta glasses look much more normal, and a person who isn't actively looking for them (and especially one who is unaware of them) isn't likely to notice them.
- NicuCalcea 8mo agoThere is a way to sus them out: https://www.404media.co/this-app-warns-you-if-someone-is-wearing-smart-glasses-nearby/ https://www.404media.co/this-app-warns-you-if-someone-is-wea... Not perfect, but better than nothing I guess. I don't think I've noticed the glasses IRL anywhere, but if I start seeing them, I'm definitely installing the app and avoiding any interactions with those people.
- paulpauper 8mo agothey look like big bulky ray-bans that no one would wear unless they were starring in a 50s remake or something . easy to spot
- giobox 8mo agoThe Wayfarer style was always bulky, they have been a fashion staple for decades at this point. The Meta gen2 ones aren't really that noticeably larger than "normal" Wayfarers - probably why they latched on this style as it gives the most room to stuff electronics while remaining similar sized to the original Wayfarer design. I still see folks wearing Wayfarers almost every single day, and have owned various (non-Meta) pairs of them for most of my adult life. It's literally one of the most popular sunglasses designs of all time.
- webdevver 8mo agoi mean theres kind of no way around it. how else are you gonna get the training data you need? the only way to bootstrap ai is to tag the data with bio-ai first (humans). different companies 'launder' it differently: with voice, it was done by "accidental" voice assistant activations. i guess with glasses, maybe there will be less window dressing this time. after all, it is clearly pitched to see what you see, at all times of the day. similar controversy happened with the various roomba products, although arguably that was a combination of data harvesting + lazy engineering.
- dangus 8mo agoThere are lots of ways around it, like adding a transparent “training mode” that a user can enable with consent, legitimately purchasing training data, etc. The root cause is that meta didn’t want to pay the fair market value for those videos and just stole them from its users by burying it in TOS. If they were honest about their intentions most people would say no or demand payment for providing something of value.
- medi8r 8mo agoThat would be good. A YC company is paying people to do just this. You know the data is being uploaded, so you can avoid e.g. your kids coming into frame. Really it should just be in the UI. Click Upload this and get 10c/minute or whatever for the video. Choose what you upload. That'd be closer in effect to using social media.
- medi8r 8mo agoLol! The no way round it defense. I'll have to remember that.
- blakesterz 8mo agoMeta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” https://www.theverge.com/tech/878725/meta-facial-recognition-smart-glasses-name-tag-privacy-advoates https://www.theverge.com/tech/878725/meta-facial-recognition...
- wongarsu 8mo agoThat shouldn't be too difficult with the current US administration. Maybe another reason Bezos and Trump get along so well
- pluc 8mo agoThey better invest in frame designs too cause as soon as they're recognizable they're gonna get slapped off faces real quick
- thewebguyd 8mo agoMaybe we'll see the revival of the term "glasshole"
- jim33442 8mo agoThe Google glasses were asking to be bullied, but the Meta ones are cooler looking
- hackyhacky 8mo agoNew makeup, old pig
- quantified 8mo agoWe are seeing it. Everyone can help by using it.
- bogzz 8mo agoI am so far removed from the type of person who might consider buying something like that. You'd have to be exceptionally impervious to social cues to even think of wearing that in public. If you're blind, it's of course understandable but that's pretty much it in terms of cases in which I would consider the glasses acceptable to wear in public.
- algoth1 8mo agoYet, it’s a life saver for blind people
- bogzz 8mo agoThanks for the edge case! Edited.
- bogwog 8mo agoHow so? I'd expect the opposite > Hey Meta, is it safe to cross the street > You are absolutely correct to check whether it's safe to cross before crossing! (emoji). Let me check for you(emoji) > ...10% ...40% ...80% ...100% DONE. (made up progress bar) > It is perfectly safe to cross right now! (emoji) > Thanks Meta! (user dies)
- al_borland 8mo agoThere is an app called Be My Eyes where blind people can use the app to be connected to someone who can see and ask questions. An example might be, “is this a red or brown sweater.” It actually looks like it added AI functionality, so not every question goes out to a live helper, but they still do have that option. Something like the Meta glasses could mean a lot less reliance on app that reach out to actual people, or looking for the phone all the time, for day-to-day help with things like this.
- autoexec 8mo agoThis kind of tech could be used for a lot of really good and useful things, but it's facebook so it will mainly be used to screw over blind people and anyone else who uses them by violating their privacy, the privacy of everyone in view of them, and all while shoving ads at the users. Facebook is toxic.
- smbullet 8mo agoHopefully this causes Meta to be more transparent about what data is sent to their annotators. It seems like even the annotators didn't know whether the person explicitly hit recorded (whether accidentally or not) or if it's samples from a constant stream. This kind of makes it impossible for anyone to consent to the purchase agreements.
- oldfuture 8mo agothis should be known by everyone
- GuinansEyebrows 8mo ago“I saw a video where a man puts the glasses on the bedside table and leaves the room.” “Shortly afterwards his wife comes in and changes her clothes”, one of them says. based on this and other context in the article, it seems like there's a very realistic chance that Meta is in possession of and actively distributing (internally and to contractors) video content of minors. i wonder if any contractors have confirmed this or have been unwillingly (or worse) exposed to this.
- diacritical 8mo agoI'm against surveillance in general and I see many people being against these glasses, yet not caring at all about surveillance cameras. Flock in the USA is a bit of an outlier in that it got some people riled up, but where I live in Europe there are private cameras looking out of at least half of the buildings, maybe more. So if you're walking down the street for 15 minutes, you'd be caught by tens or hundreds of cameras from various manufacturers, installed by various business and homes. Who knows how many have microphones, which server they store their feed in, what security each cam has and so on. I asked 2 cops in a patrol car if I could install cameras on my own and how I should go about it. They said they don't mind them. Officially it's illegal unless you have a permit, but it's so widespread and the law is so unenforced that it's practically 99.99% legal. I can point a few cameras to the street and record everything 24/7. When I'm on a bus I'm being recorded by a few cameras. On most bus/tram/subway stops there are cameras. In stores and public buildings there are cameras. Most cars have cameras for insurance or general safety concerns. Self-driving cars would have to have cameras, as well as delivery robots. If we accept this shitty reality, why shouldn't I wear a camera and a mic, too?
- http-teapot 8mo agoI think there is a wide gap between public surveillance and private surveillance. Smart glasses record in private settings and the biggest point of contention is that they "stealth" record. If someone recorded you with their phone, you'd immediately notice whereas it's hardly noticeable with smart glasses. Worse, people at Facebook are able to visualize scenes from people's home unbeknownst to them.
- lvl155 8mo agoOnly Meta and Zuck would continually introduce invasive products.
- jbxntuehineoh 8mo agoOn an unrelated note, the FT reported today [1] that Israel was able to track Iranian leadership by hacking "nearly all" of the traffic cameras in Tehran. Anyways, I think we should continue to put as many networked cameras, microphones, and other sensors in as many products as possible. There are no downsides! [1] https://archive.is/QSCjf https://archive.is/QSCjf
- twodave 8mo agoI overall agree with your point, but I don’t think “tracking leadership of a country that murders tens of thousands of its own citizens” is a strong supporting argument…
- palata 8mo agoBecause you think that "being able to track leadership of a country that knows that other countries may want to target them" does not mean "being able to track pretty much anyone"? Or do you think that those cameras are less secure because the leadership is not good with their people? I'm not sure I follow the criticism here.
- flockonus 8mo agoAnyone who has a mobile phone has been tracked by their phone provider forever, with the accuracy of a couple blocks. Smartphones only bring more trackers to the equation in the form of apps. What's the material concern to tracking that glasses add?
- Onavo 8mo agoYou can recognize a threat to national security without supporting the ideology behind it. It sounds like you are trying to to spread FUD around stronger privacy regulations. It would be a lot less funny when the shoe is on the other foot and it's not Iranian networks that's being compromised. Are you perhaps a vendor of mass surveillance systems like your username's namesake?
- 8mo ago
- pstoll 8mo agoTLDR the recorded media isn’t end-to-end encrypted and they aren’t selling it but instead using it to train their own systems. What is new here?
- ali-aljufairi 8mo ago[dead]
- jotux 8mo agoMeta needs to make a find-your-lost-dog commercial for their smart glasses ASAP.
- rationalist 8mo agoCan someone just make one using AI and share it?
- ncr100 8mo agoJust think of the children. Changing a soiled garment, transmitting video of the whole ordeal, isn't that super illegal?
- bamboozled 8mo agoThese things are a pedo dream.
- rationalist 8mo agoNot in the U.S. To be illegal, it would either have to be focused on the genitals or of sexual content. Nudity is not automatically sexual.
- nosequel 8mo agoI won't even walk into a house with Alexa devices around, there is no way I'm going to let Meta glasses be in the same room as me.
- crazygringo 8mo agoDon you carry a cell phone? Do you walk into rooms where other people have smartphones with Siri or Google Assistant? Those are literally no different from Alexa.
- al_borland 8mo agoMy dad has an Alexa and told me about a couple situations that were very creepy. He somehow laughed it off instead of throwing it in the trash. I will never understand that.
- stbtrax 8mo agoHow does that even work? Do you ask before you go in whether they have devices? and do you not go around mobile phones with ai assistants?
- guelo 8mo agoThose glasses have a tiny white led when the camera is on. It really needs to be more obvious. This might be something we'll need legislation for since Meta is an evil-ish immoral company.
- FireSquid2006 8mo agoI'm not sure if there is any use case that could convince me to mount an internet connected device to my head at all times.
- jlarocco 8mo agoDoesn't matter when everybody around you has one.
- nomilk 8mo agoIs it paranoid to assume every device with a camera/mic can see/hear everything? That's my default assumption.
- impossiblefork 8mo agoWhile it may be legal for an individual to film something, it is certainly not permissible to process video data of this sort at scale. I don't agree that responsibility to comply with Swedish law is on the wearer. This should motivate prosecutors to immediately order raids to secure any data relating to the processing of the data. I also think the Swedish camera surveillance law is also applicable and there's a deceptive element since the cameras are disguised as glasses.
- NalNezumi 8mo agoI sincerely hope someone in Japan or Korea get caught using those to peek under trousers on the train so it get the forced camera sound treatment of smartphones over there. So the world can label them as Hentai glasses and move on
- tjpnz 8mo agoThey're not being sold in Japan and based on existing laws wouldn't last long on the market if they were. As a longterm resident of Japan this is something I'm very happy about.
- febusravenga 8mo agoGood to hear, some countries already have some privacy laws protecting is from this type of products. Anyone has share more specifics about those laws, how's that they are effective in this case (unlike GDPR which is annoying and usually toothless).
- gverrilla 8mo agoIncel glasses sounds better imo.
- mayowaxcvi 8mo agoMy concern was whether the glasses might record or transmit data while switched off or in standby mode. From what I can tell, they don’t do this intentionally. So the risk is broadly similar to other modern electronic devices. The creepiness concern is real, but I think people misplace where the actual surveillance happens. The most consequential stores of personal data aren’t ad networks they’re things like banks, hospitals, insurers, and telecoms. These institutions hold information about your health, finances, movements, and relationships, indexed and searchable by employees you’ve never met, governed by policies you’ve never read. Realistically, there’s very little an individual can do to completely opt out. My take is: if the main outcomes are that I get shown ads for things I don’t need and my facecomputer knows the difference between a fork and a spoon… I… I can live with that.
- drnick1 8mo ago> Realistically, there’s very little an individual can do to completely opt out. Yes, but it's possible, at the cost of some minor inconvenience, to greatly limit data collected about you. Communicate over private channels (Signal, own XMPP servers, NOT Whatsapp), pay in cash or crypto, runs free software on all your devices, and deny Internet access to devices across the board (this includes all TVs/monitors, all "smart" devices, cars, and other appliances). The real issue is that (as these glasses exemplify), it is difficult to prevent others to intentionally or unintentionally provide data to surveillance companies. This happens when you walk in front of a Ring camera, when someone uploads a selfie to Facebook and you happen to be in the background, and in countless other situations.
- al_borland 8mo ago> it is difficult to prevent others to intentionally or unintentionally provide data to surveillance companies One that bothers me a lot are all the apps that want people to share your contacts to find your friends. This is a quick way for them to get all the contact information, which may also include birthdays and other more sensitive details. Even if I were to never make a Facebook account, I could almost guarantee they still have my name, address, phone number, DOB, and maybe more.
- roughly 8mo agoEverything else in this article is horrific, but this stuck out to me: > “The algorithms sometimes miss. Especially in difficult lighting conditions, certain faces and bodies become visible”. Right, “difficult lighting conditions,” not sure when we’d run into those in situations where we might be concerned with privacy. A 97% success rate looks good on paper.
- matsemann 8mo ago"certain faces", they're definitely saying it doesn't blur non-white/black faces properly..
- yalogin 8mo agoOf course they can, why would one expect anything else? However if you look through their processes I am sure they are covered by some legal jargon to do the bare minimum in terms of security. They will have every knob available to debug to the lowest level possible and view everything
- aerodog 8mo ago[flagged]
- jcgrillo 8mo agoIt's genuinely uncanny to see good tech journalism.. it's normally so much worse than this
- rosstex 8mo agoYou can thank Sweden in this case
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- showerst 8mo agoHow does this not fall afoul of states with two party consent laws around recording conversations? Particularly since California is one of the strictest states.
- loeg 8mo agoHow does your phone's camera? Ultimately, it's up to users to obey laws with their recording devices.
- zmmmmm 8mo agoI do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shine a bright light whenever recording. Are people really going into bathrooms, having sex, sharing rooms with people undressed while this light is on? Or is this deliberate tampering, malfunctioning, or Meta capturing footage without activating the light (hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally).
- losvedir 8mo agoAgreed. I'm confused trying to map what the article is saying to what's happening at a technical level. For example, obviously it's not doing on-device inference, so it's unsurprising that it won't work without a network connection, but this is totally distinct from your recordings ending up getting labeled. It talks about being able to opt into that, which is one thing. But I guess I don't understand if you don't opt in, if the data still gets sent out for labeling. I feel like this article is either a bombshell, or totally confused.
- noduerme 8mo ago>> but this is totally distinct from your recordings ending up getting labeled The distinction here occurs wherever the data is processed, and it sounds as if the difference between using your video for labeling versus privately processing it through an AI is deliberately confusing and obscured to the user by the way the terms of service are written. Once the video is uploaded, which is necessary for the basic function, it's unclear how or whether it can be separated from other streams that do go through labeling. This confusion also seems to be an intentional dark pattern.
- cmiles74 8mo agoMy reading was that as soon as you enable the "AI" functionality you are opted into having your recordings labeled. "But for the AI assistant to function, voice, text, image and sometimes video must be processed and may be shared onwards. This data processing is done automatically and cannot be turned off."
- ripped_britches 8mo agoToo funny that the subcontractor working for meta is “sama”
- tim-tday 8mo agoColor me shocked.
- iJohnDoe 8mo agoFTA > "I saw a video where a man puts the glasses on the bedside table and leaves the room. Shortly afterwards his wife comes in and changes her clothes." "The workers describe videos where people’s bank cards are visible by mistake." This is hugely concerning. We need more details. Why are the glasses recording when not being worn? Is the light on when it's recording? Are the Meta employees able to turn on the streaming without people knowing? Are these videos only when someone says "Hey Meta..."? Are the Meta employees looking at every "Hey Meta..." video where someone asks AI a question? These glasses are considered a luxury item and are worn by executives in office environments. They are worn by people in family situations. Someone could be a confidential or private moment and randomly ask AI a question; one of the primary purposes of the glasses. Are all of these being seen by Meta employees?
- some_furry 8mo agoGood reporting, but this has always been Meta's M.O. so I'm really not surprised. The sooner we collectively stop trusting them (and maybe even actively campaign to have the U.S. government meaningfully regulate them), the better. Personally, I would like to see the company stop existing and its executive board destitute.
- camillomiller 8mo agoI already personally refuse to be around anyone who wears them. And I think establishments should just outright ban them.
- dlev_pika 8mo agoCrazy to have 1 trillion invested in data centers, underpinned by dollar-a-day human turk ops
- dehrmann 8mo agoAll sorts of industries are capital intensive where labor is relatively cheap. A fancy roller coaster costs $50M, but you pay college students $15 per hour to run it. Airlines spend a few thousand per day on pilots for a $300M plane.
- diego_moita 8mo ago[flagged]
- OpenWaygate 8mo ago"But at what cost"
- binarynate 8mo agoAt a friend's party recently, I met someone who told me that they had worked in data for Meta's glasses division and warned me never to get Meta glasses for this very reason—that the workers can see everything. They told me of a comical case where a guy pulled down his pants to look at his penis, asked "Meta, what is this?", and the AI responded that it was a thumb. XD
- fullstop 8mo agoAh, maybe he shouldn't have shared that. Or at least aimed for something larger than a thumb.
- iJohnDoe 8mo agoThis means actual Meta/Facebook employees are seeing or at least hearing about actual footage. Not just third-world contractor employees. Absolutely crazy that a Meta employee saying not to buy them. Everyone should know this right now.
- SoftTalker 8mo agoBetter response than "Somewhat smaller than average"
- nvrmnd 8mo ago[flagged]
- Otterly99 8mo agoHave you even read the article? It is literally citing farms in Kenya where workers look at user footage and annotate videos.
- maximinus_thrax 8mo agoI love the Facebook glasses, they seem to be the swan song of a shitty company. Young people have abandoned Facebook when their parents started hanging out, now it's all boomers and bots posting conspiracy theories. If they think this surveillance tech is going to push the company forward, it means leadership is even more disconnected from reality than the Amazon people who greenlit the superbowl ad. It means the company is dying. Huzzah!
- stavros 8mo agoWhat the hell? I thought the videos went to the phone directly, they're all getting uploaded to Meta? I don't know why I let my guard down against that company for one second. EDIT: Wait, is this when you use the "ask Meta" feature? I do expect that to send all the clips to a server for an LLM to process, it's not done on-device. It's not clear to me whether it's that or just all videos/photos you record with the glasses.
- chwahoo 8mo agoI'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Share data about your Meta devices to help improve Meta products. - [OFF] "Cloud media" - Allow your photos and videos to be sent to Meta's cloud for processing and temporary storage. I'm not sure whether my settings would prevent my media from being used as described in the article. Also, it's not clear which data is being used for training: - random photos / videos taken - only use of "Meta AI" (e.g., "Hey Meta, can you translate this sign") As much as I've liked my Meta Ray Ban's I'm going to need clarity here before I continue using them. TBH, if it were only use of Meta AI, I'd "get it" but probably turn that feature off (I barely use it as-is).
- zhubert 8mo agoSo you believe that you are in control?
- chwahoo 8mo agoI think the most likely case is: this company is labeling images from meta AI use from people who opted-in to share their data with Meta. It's certainly possible that it's something much more surprising / sinister, but there is a fairly logical combination of settings that I could see a company could argue lets them use the data for training. I'm also very certain that few users with these settings would expect the images to be shown to actual people, so I'm not defending Meta.
- socalgal2 8mo agoHilarious that a post about collecting data is on a site that collects data
- greatgib 8mo agoPrivacy policies and usage terms are like the magic wand of the industry. Whatever totally bad they want to do and however they want to abuse of you and of your data, they just have to add a few unreadable lines in a 40 pages document and that's it. No one will read it, but even if you do, most of the time the FOMO or sunk cost fallacy effect will make you go on anyway. And then it is a free pass for them.
- thomassmith65 8mo agoI do not care about the privacy of people who buy these glasses nor their families. I care about the innocent people whose privacy is invaded by people who buy these glasses.
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo agoI’ve always been curious if they violate GDPR, HIPPA or similar, given they actively record everything you see, including European nationals and health records.
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo agoCan someone explain the downvotes here? I genuinely do not understand if I’ve said something dumb or if they’re just people scoffing at what I thought might be legitimate legal rights of people?
- 31337Logic 8mo agoHoly shit! This is absolutely despicable and probably the worst tech news I've read all year. Why do people still support Meta/Facebook?!?!
- Murfalo 8mo agoSurely this is already happening with our other devices? Not that it isn't a problem but that the game is already lost...?
- ccccrrriis 8mo agoI got a pair as a gift and didn't look much into them but I have to be honest, I assumed any data I captured - voice, video, etc. - would be sent to their servers (to use their models) and they'd be using it for training with humans in the loop. Tbh the only thing I really use the glasses for are listening to music or talking on the phone - so basically how you'd use airpods. I don't use airpods because I had an ear injury that prevents me from using them on my left ear, so these glasses were kinda nice for that. I really wish they didn't have a camera though because I do always feel compelled to remove them if I interact with people. I also have to add that the quality is mediocre. They're a month old and the case has problems charging sometimes, and one of the screws is always coming loose at a hinge no matter how often I retighten that side.
- nullwarp 8mo agoFWIW I have Bose Frames which are great and do the same thing minus the camera.
- rr808 8mo agoI think they're dumb but my wife loves them. The video quality is surprisingly good.
- TowerTall 8mo agoThere must be a special place reserved for Mark Zuckerberg in hell
- arian_ 8mo agoWorkers can see everything" means this isn't an AI privacy problem. It's a surveillance-as-a-service problem with extra steps.
- sharkweek 8mo agoI really want to make a fake PSA that suggests anyone wearing the Meta glasses is probably a pervert and should be proactively avoided/shunned. This product cannot be allowed to exist in the type of world I want to live in. The power structure wants these to succeed in the market for so many horrific reasons and it will require some serious societal muscle to reject them.
- hkt 8mo agoAs a regular glasses wearer, I really do dread the years ahead when I get mistaken for a glasshole. I suspect it won't be pretty.
- transitorykris 8mo agoIt’s been done before. Send the glassholes to Molotov’s in SF. https://sf.eater.com/2014/2/26/6272945/heres-the-video-of-the-molotovs-google-glass-incident https://sf.eater.com/2014/2/26/6272945/heres-the-video-of-th...
- posnet 8mo agoI am forever reminded of this stupid cartoon: https://youtu.be/6PY8C1KmNwM?si=_WU_lstzp_5mFrxk https://youtu.be/6PY8C1KmNwM?si=_WU_lstzp_5mFrxk
- zdragnar 8mo agoI remember people with the Google glasses being called glassholes. The fact that companies are trying again and apparently succeeding tells you just how much A) they believe in the idea and / or B) how much money there is to be made having people wear them. Smart wearables as a general category of hardware have an awful rate of success, and hardware is much more expensive to get into than software. So, there's got to be a lot of money in the data consumers will be producing. That's the part that scares me much more so than the random perverts using them in public for unsavory candid photos.
- wraptile 8mo agoIt's sad that the gap between a "glasshole" and meta glasses is just a branded frame. If anything Meta has significantly worse public reputation now than Google during Google Glass time.
- thunderfork 8mo agoFun fact: all advertiser chat support agents at Meta used to (still might) have full super-read on FB. When you read "workers" in this headline, don't think "devs", think "legions of contracted-out T1 support staff"
- medi8r 8mo agoIt is worse: > The workers in Kenya say that it feels uncomfortable to go to work. They tell us about deeply private video clips, which appear to come straight out of Western homes, from people who use the glasses in their everyday lives.
- medi8r 8mo agoThis simply needs to be criminalized. Basicially it is a peeping tom.
- cl0ckt0wer 8mo agoOh look a flock competitor
- sidcool 8mo agoDespite the historical misadventures of Meta, if people still use their products with an expectation of privacy, it's on the people.
- DavidPiper 8mo agoAh yes, while everyone was focused on Flock cameras... For many more reasons than pervert behaviour, I agree that this kind of tool cannot coexist with healthy society. "Glassholes" was a delightful portmanteau, but I suspect normalising a term like "pedo glasses" will probably put people off them way sooner and faster. At the very least it identifies the product and not the person as the problem.
- DonHopkins 8mo agoTrump-Epstein Glasses
- ajr0 8mo agopedo peekers
- notpushkin 8mo agoHas the submission title just been editorialized? I swear I’ve seen it mentioning data collection before, now it’s just bland.
- skeptic_ai 8mo agoThe workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything (svd.se) 700 points by sandbach 5 hours ago | flag | hide | 402 comments
- notpushkin 8mo agoYes! https://web.archive.org/web/20260303011913/https://news.ycombinator.com/news https://web.archive.org/web/20260303011913/https://news.ycom... dang, could you check what went wrong here? The new title doesn’t represent the article at all. (edit: sent an email, too) sandbach, if you still have access to editing, maybe you could change it back?
- deaux 8mo agoYes it has, in a way that goes directly against HN guidelines. The page title is "Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything”".
- tomhow 8mo agoWe just updated the title to “Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns”.
- deaux 8mo agoWhy was the title changed from "The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything" to "A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses"? It doesn't go against any guidelines: > Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. > If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link. > If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids." > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. The literal URL slug is > metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-privacy-concerns-workers-say-we-see-everything The page title is > Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything” The new title goes against the guidelines by editorializing. I've never seen HN do this before, what's going on here?
- disqard 8mo agoI'm with you. I thought the title captured and represented the OG article accurately. What's going on?
- camillomiller 8mo ago@dang do you care explaining? This looks really terrible.
- Gnadgnad 8mo agoThis tells us Meta's strategic focus for the next several quarters. This must hit a very expensive nerve.
- Gnadgnad 8mo agoIt's very telling that this post has been sent straight to the bottom.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- 8mo ago
- stevefan1999 8mo agoI would really love to use smart glasses for DevOps, especially Grafana dashboards
- halapro 8mo agoTo a technical person, this is obvious. AI doesn't happen on the glasses, it doesn't happen on your crappy phone, it happens online. Live streaming, which is also a feature, by definition sends everything it captures to someone else's computer (ahem, the cloud). Yesterday I saw a Instagram reel of a guy asking "what am I looking at" while between his girlfriend's legs. Congrats, some Indian guy saw her too. The core piece of information that is missing or unclear is whether this collection happens also when not actively and knowingly sending data to the cloud. The glasses let me record videos locally, can Facebook see any frames of them? This is the question that needs to be answered. Everything is else is nonsense like "omg Amazon hears what I tell Alexa"
- yieldcrv 8mo ago"my spying glasses are spying on me"
- _ZeD_ 8mo agoSooo... I really should start keepin running this[1] all the time... https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses/ https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses/
- deaux 8mo agoPage title - Meta’s AI Smart Glasses and Data Privacy Concerns: Workers Say “We See Everything” Original HN title - The workers behind Meta’s smart glasses can see everything Editorialized HN title v1, 7 hours after post - A hidden workforce behind Meta’s new smart glasses Editorialized HN title v2 - Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
- nubg 8mo agolmao what's going on? hn cucking to meta pressure?
- notpushkin 8mo agotomhow has just responded to my email. If I understand correctly, the HN mods feel that the “see everything” bit would cause less civil discussion in the comments. I find v2 title okay-ish: it’s derived from the page title, and you can see what it’s about (as compared to v1). It doesn’t capture the degree of what Meta can see, though.
- gverrilla 8mo agoWhat did you expect from Y Combinator? Stop being naive and delulu.
- tomkarho 8mo agoThere are no privacy concerns because there IS no privacy. /s
- umpalumpaaa 8mo agoThe title is now “She Came Out of the Bathroom Naked, Employee Says”
- kgarten 8mo agoI think this coverage feels very similar to the way Google Glass was treated back in the early 2010s ... there’s a grain of legitimate concern, but the article oversells what these glasses actually do and stokes alarm in a way that goes beyond the available facts. Workers annotating data for AI might see sensitive content captured by smart glasses. But the leap from that to “we see everything” and framing it like some dystopian panopticon mirrors the early Google Glass panic, where the concerns often outran what the device actually could do. Legitimate concerns shouldn’t be dismissed, but neither should they be inflated to create a new “Glass-forked-into-Big-Brother” narrative unless the evidence genuinely supports that level of risk ...
- jspdown 8mo agoDon't you need to obtain consent before filming random people in the street? I already feel uncomfortable when someone takes a photo in public and I happen to be in it, but this type of device takes things to an entirely different level. With smart glasses, there's no visible cue that you're being recorded. No phone held up, no camera in sight. I'm questioning the legality of this in Europe, where privacy laws tend to be stricter. In the meantime, should I just assume that anyone wearing these glasses is always filming? And would I be within my rights to ask them to stop the moment I notice them?
- itake 8mo agoNo, for most countries I mean, otherwise countries couldn’t use security cameras
- Y-bar 8mo agoGiven that the article is from a Swedish publication, you often need prior permission to use a security camera which could take images of the genera public. Much of this is regulated with GDPR. https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/camera-surveillance/ https://www.imy.se/en/individuals/camera-surveillance/
- mrkickling 8mo agoOnly for stationary cameras. Filming/photographing with a non-stationary camera is allowed as long as it is not in a sensitive situation (in their home, in the toilet/changing room/etc).
- Y-bar 8mo agoSo I can mount my security camera on a WallE-like chassis to randomly drive around my property and I am no longer under the same strict regulation? What exactly made you come to that conclusion when IMY considers things like dashcams to be under the regulations of privacy and GDPR?
- fabbbbb 8mo ago
- arcadianalpaca 8mo agoThe recording light argument keeps coming up but I don't buy it. I can't tell if someone's glasses have a tiny LED on from across a room, and neither can anyone else.Under GDPR it's a on Meta to handle consent, not on me to squint at someone's face to figure out if I'm being filmed.
- randycupertino 8mo agoAlso creeps can just easily search to see how to disable the light anyways.
- arcadianalpaca 8mo agoTrue, can't even be taken for a real safeguard to begin with. It's there so Meta can say they tried :)
- OrangeMusic 8mo agoThis argument is invalid. Creeps exist, and if they want to discreetly film stuff, they have many great options (hidden miniature cameras). In fact why on earth would they choose the Ray Ban glasses which are getting highly suspicious?
- Juliate 8mo agoLikewise, are there any startup for wearable devices that visually jam or impair digital cameras?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- instahotstar 8mo agoThese glasses are godd one
- de6u99er 8mo agoIt's the same issue with Tesla collecting camera feeds through their cars to use it for macbine learning. Those videos can also be a used to track people. IMHO each Tesla owner sending video data to Tesla's data centers is violating privacy laws!
- StrauXX 8mo agoThey are! This Tesla feature is illegal to use in Germany and Austria. [1] (in German) https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000215526/aktueller-fall-zeigt-tesla-fahrer-koennen-wegen-autokameras-in-teure-datenschutzfalle-tappen https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000215526/aktueller-fal...
- notyetmachine 8mo agoGhanaian authorities are seeking the arrest of a Russsian national who was using glasses to record himself picking up, and sleeping with, women in Ghana and Kenya. He uploaded them to social media and telegram. Was quite the story on African tech twitter last month. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wn5p299eko https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wn5p299eko
- wahnfrieden 8mo agoPost titled has been repeatedly edited to make it vague and to remove all content of the concern Actual title is “She Came Out of the Bathroom Naked, [Meta] Employee Says” and subtitle begins with “Bank details, sex and naked people who seem unaware they are being recorded” Suspicious moderation behaviors on this one
- bryanrasmussen 8mo agosmart glasses are a potential great boon for mankind, really, only both of the iterations we have had have been from two companies that are arguably detrimental to humanity.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- cubefox 8mo agoThe article is somewhat disingenuous because it "forgets" to mention the bright LED on the glasses while filming. This makes statements in the article that people don't know about video recording much less believable.
- rodwyersoftware 8mo agoIf you're in public you have no privacy by default.
- alkonaut 8mo agoThat's something created/accepted as a reasonable state of affairs simply because no one could imagine the resources needed to record and track every person everywhere (Or, we could - but it was fiction). Being in public was considered seen by others. Perhaps an occasional photo being taken. Perhaps the old ideas that "you have no privacy in public" or "if you can be seen then you can be recorded" and so on just need to be revised? Should we reconsider what it means to be "in public"? Perhaps people should be granted some form of privacy protection also when "in public"?
- rodwyersoftware 8mo agoBetter to worry about the Africans running around raping our European women rather than if someone is recording you for 5 seconds while walking your dog.
- alkonaut 8mo agoDid you make a wrong turn? /r/asshat is over there -> You posted a message in "Who wants to be hired" at almost the same time as you posted this. Do you think a potential recruiter would read your comment history? Sigh
- rodwyersoftware 8mo agoI really don't care. I am a free man
- alkonaut 8mo agoYou cared enough to post in "who wants to be hired" but you don't care about actually being hired? I think you might be a "free man" longer than you want...
- nkrisc 8mo agoNot all technology is good.
- bys_exe 8mo agoMeta glasses will scare people in public because they think they are being recorded even though they are not..
- KaiserPro 8mo agoWhat I don't understand is where this data is coming from. Is it actually Meta's raybans or is it project aria (https://www.projectaria.com/ https://www.projectaria.com/) Because I didn't think that the data was uploaded to meta by default, when you take a video with the raybans. More over, I didn't think that those glasses could record more than 2.5 minutes. The point still remains, the devil in detail of the "privacy" policy.
- kgwxd 8mo agoWhy in the world did they even try this again? What market is there for it beyond creeps? Or is that the hot thing right now?
- breve 8mo agoMeta's business model is premised on intensive and pervasive user surveillance. When you use Meta's products and services you are tagged, tracked, and commodified like an animal. You are cattle. The question isn't whether or not Meta's AI smart glasses raise data privacy concerns. The question is why use anything from Meta in the first place?
- sneak 8mo agoThe answer: because Meta has deliberately and intentionally inserted themselves into the social fabric so they can use network effects to surveil you sell your personal relationships back to you. They bought up Instagram and WhatsApp to the same end, then Oculus. Even Carmack fell for the lie. Meta never wants you talking to anyone in any medium without them knowing about it, because it allows them to sell more and more ads, because nobody is going to give up communications with their friends and family. It's not that complicated. Most people just go where the other users are. They "have nothing to hide". Their thoughtless decisions actively make society worse for everyone else, one user at a time. Even tech people who know the scam throw up their hands and express how impossible it would be to get their kids' soccer parents or PTA groups to abandon WhatsApp groups or FB Messenger for something privacy-respecting. The tyranny of the installed base. Go to a place that didn't have deliberate large scale society-wide anti-smoking programs. Basically everyone starts smoking at age 15 and never stops. People regularly and typically, en masse, work against their own interests in ways that seem like "not a big deal". Suddenly, you can't make a doctor's appointment in Europe without a WhatsApp account (and agreeing to the Meta ToS in the process). (Why Europe casually ceded the basic day to day communications of many of its b2c sectors to an American company without so much as a fight is another matter.)
- alpineman 8mo agoYep, that's why I refuse to give Whatsapp (and when I still used them, Instagram and Messenger), full access to my Camera reel. For some reason they keep asking aggressively for permission for the whole thing. I wonder why...
- pbmonster 8mo agoInteresting article, but I wonder why the journalists didn't go all the way. Sure, Meta isn't going to comment when you ask them what data they have. But this is in the EU, just hit them with a Subject Access Request under GDPR. Would be really interesting to create a completely new account, use the glasses with all upload settings off for a month, and then SAR request and see what they have...
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- gverrilla 8mo agoUsage of creep-ware won't be tolerated in the social groups I take part on. We will shame hard anyone who uses this sh1t.
- shevy-java 8mo agoUnderstandable, and not disagreeing per se, though hard-shaming is a strange strategy. But, ignoring this, people record videos and upload on youtube. While this is not quite the same as Meta-spy-glasses where people work for Suckerburg suddenly, people still upload videos on youtube, instagram etc... - is that very different to the spyglass? I think it is not that different, viewed more objectively. It's not the same, granted, but also not that different.
- gverrilla 8mo agoStrange strategy? Are you new to humanity?
- shevy-java 8mo agoWell - don't wear their spyglasses. It's really not that hard. You can still record stuff without spyglasses. People do that on youtube too, e. g. first amendment audits. It's not that different to the spyglasses, except that you can cut off Meta from the process (admittedly youtube creates another problem which is called Google; it would be nice if we could have platforms without corporate overlord, but the financial aspect may still be an issue that requires solving. I don't have a good way to solve that, as I am also having a 100% zero ads policy aka using ublock origin mandatorily. And Google declared total war againts ublock origin, we all know that.)
- Schlagbohrer 8mo agoI look forward to the day when I can have a fully FOSS, trustworthy pair of smart glasses, made by people who genuinely want to and do put user privacy first. But until then, no fucking way. I don't even like keeping my cellphone in the same room as me when I'm at home.
- 3efr4444444 8mo agoRetest
- andy_ppp 8mo agoWe need safe spaces where you aren't constantly living inside the panopticon...
- zombot 8mo agoWho would even expect any privacy from the Facebook mafia? The rename to "Meta" doesn't obscure the fact that they are bottomfeeders.
- rsynnott 8mo agoCan we just get Robert Scoble to come back and destroy these, please?
- dhab 8mo agoConditioning the crowd gradually towards being monetised in some of the most egregious ways - first pay for the glasses, then pay with revelations of private life sold to government (ICE?), business (private insurance) and so on. Super evil. And despite this, there is no strong will to detach from what they produce - in the beginning or later when it is considered like cultural fabric. That’s how good their tactics is. And for the pay one gets working for them - screw the world! I won’t use it anywhere near my loved ones - but will build it
- mjbonanno 8mo agoThe privacy angle here is fascinating. Curious if anyone has tried running the on-device model locally yet?
- giwook 8mo agoWhat kinds of defensive measures can you even take against such a blatant and yet inevitable invasion of privacy that don't involve you just completely covering your face whenever you go out in public?
- bhekanik 8mo ago[flagged]
- zouhair 8mo agoI am confused that people act so offended. What do people expect? Meta and all tech companies do not believe in privacy for anyone but themselves. Isn't our info how they make their money?
- genie3io 8mo ago[dead]
- guywithahat 8mo agoTo their credit, all interesting consumer tech introduces privacy concerns because to do interesting things you usually have to integrate tightly with someone's life. I'm just not that concerned about filming sunglasses, in fact I'm kind of excited
- jameson 8mo agoEveryone should assume that _anything_ connected to internet will get uploaded to internet and someone within the company will have permission to review the contents regardless of what the policy says. 1. Debugging for troubleshooting. 2. Analytical for making product better. 3. Bugs that collects your info when it shouldn't. 4. Bugs from 3rd party vendor if company uses those. 5. Insecure process. Getting access to a private content within the company is trivial due to coarse permission model. Source: I worked at two well known social media companies. Trust & Safety and data infra teams
- robotburrito 8mo agoOften I hear. “these are so cool! It’s a shame meta makes them.” All of their pivots will fail because of their track record IMo.
- lenerdenator 8mo ago> Meta > Privacy Pick one.
- Mulhimfy 8mo agoThe privacy implications here go beyond just the recording light. The real concern is how Meta trains AI models on captured data without explicit consent — and most users have no idea this is happening.
- BarryGuff 8mo agoHow come Meta's glasses are still a thing when Google's glasses got shut down for privacy reasons? What's the difference?