4 ms·

Zuckoff app detects nearby Meta 'perv glasses'

6 points by MC995 9d ago

Colegno 9d ago
It should be illegal to record your face through 'perv glasses' without consent.
- verdverm 9d ago
  What about phone cameras? I'm curious if/how people make a distinction, I really like the UX of AR (as found in the HoloLens 2), hardware is getting close to where I might pick something up again (FOV has hardly budged, form factor way down) I suspect smart glasses will be a normal thing one day, the experience is orders of magnitude better than looking down at a tiny touch screen
  - EA-3167 9d ago
    Obviously the difference is stealth.
    - verdverm 9d ago
      Phone cameras can and are used stealthily as well, it's not hard to fake texting while actually taking a photo, setting aside those which happen that you are not looking their way to notice. On the flip side, with smart glasses, others cannot look over your shoulder at your text messages. There are areas where privacy increases I just don't think this line of thinking will hold up long term. Pervs are going to perv anyway, but the UX improvement for the average person will be that 10x better than they will take the downsides for the outsized upsides they get. I'm personally more concerned about AR ads when it comes to smart glasses
      - JohnFen 9d ago
        > On the flip side, with smart glasses, others cannot look over your shoulder at your text messages. There are areas where privacy increases So, privacy for thee but not for me? This is what makes these sorts of devices so objectionable. They're people subjecting unconsenting others to surveillance for nothing more than their own convenience. And surveillance that is much more difficult to detect.
        verdverm 9d ago
        > privacy for thee but not for me? That can be said for both directions What really seems to be happening is people extrapolating a few bad apples into the default. We're already being subjected to unconsenting photos by other people every day. There's nothing illegal about that. I'm not sure there is anything illegal about someone taking a photo of someone and nudifying it. The problematic part is more distribution of deepfake nudes / revenge porn. Are we just in a societal phase of throwing the baby out with the bath water? There's a lot of negativity and anger everywhere, vis a vis the Trump effect
        JohnFen 9d ago
        > That can be said for both directions Huh? In what way? My desire to avoid being spied on does not impinge on anyone else's privacy. > What really seems to be happening is people extrapolating a few bad apples into the default. That's not my position. My position is that these devices expose me to a larger corporate/governmental (you can't really separate the two) surveillance system. The person actually wearing the devices isn't really my main point of concern. > There's nothing illegal about that. I'm not talking about what's legal. I'm talking about what's acceptable and right.
        verdverm 8d ago
        > Huh? In what way? I was referring to phone vs glasses > My position is that these devices expose me to a larger corporate/governmental (you can't really separate the two) surveillance system. How do smart glasses change things from the phone you and everyone else (I assume) carry with us wherever us go? > I'm talking about what's acceptable and right. If you make public photography illegal, you also make illegal the capturing of things that are not acceptable or right. Remember when ICE murdered Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
      - EA-3167 9d ago
        Outside of this niche the people interested in cameras on their glasses is incredibly niche, while the desire not to be filmed covertly is almost universal. Phone cameras are hardly free from problems either, as upskirting shows. I would expect significant regulation before widespread acceptance and that rules out anything involving crooks like Meta. I also frankly suspect that if you were a typical target of this sort of behavior your attitude would be different.
        verdverm 9d ago
        valid points, but if you have not been in good AR before, I don't think you can know how much better the experience is, to the point I believe people will stop focussing on the rare negatives and it will become as ubiquitous as the smart phone form factor is nearly there, FOV needs to be ~100° (~50° today, like having horse blinders on) this is my prediction anyhow, I could care less about the camera as a camera feature, but environmental awareness and enrichment is pretty awesome, MRTK had the interaction experience down, their system 8 years ago is still better than anything else I've seen today

6 points by MC995 9d ago

Colegno 9d ago

It should be illegal to record your face through 'perv glasses' without consent.

verdverm 9d ago
What about phone cameras? I'm curious if/how people make a distinction, I really like the UX of AR (as found in the HoloLens 2), hardware is getting close to where I might pick something up again (FOV has hardly budged, form factor way down) I suspect smart glasses will be a normal thing one day, the experience is orders of magnitude better than looking down at a tiny touch screen
- EA-3167 9d ago
  Obviously the difference is stealth.
  - verdverm 9d ago
    Phone cameras can and are used stealthily as well, it's not hard to fake texting while actually taking a photo, setting aside those which happen that you are not looking their way to notice. On the flip side, with smart glasses, others cannot look over your shoulder at your text messages. There are areas where privacy increases I just don't think this line of thinking will hold up long term. Pervs are going to perv anyway, but the UX improvement for the average person will be that 10x better than they will take the downsides for the outsized upsides they get. I'm personally more concerned about AR ads when it comes to smart glasses
    - JohnFen 9d ago
      > On the flip side, with smart glasses, others cannot look over your shoulder at your text messages. There are areas where privacy increases So, privacy for thee but not for me? This is what makes these sorts of devices so objectionable. They're people subjecting unconsenting others to surveillance for nothing more than their own convenience. And surveillance that is much more difficult to detect.
      - verdverm 9d ago
        > privacy for thee but not for me? That can be said for both directions What really seems to be happening is people extrapolating a few bad apples into the default. We're already being subjected to unconsenting photos by other people every day. There's nothing illegal about that. I'm not sure there is anything illegal about someone taking a photo of someone and nudifying it. The problematic part is more distribution of deepfake nudes / revenge porn. Are we just in a societal phase of throwing the baby out with the bath water? There's a lot of negativity and anger everywhere, vis a vis the Trump effect
        JohnFen 9d ago
        > That can be said for both directions Huh? In what way? My desire to avoid being spied on does not impinge on anyone else's privacy. > What really seems to be happening is people extrapolating a few bad apples into the default. That's not my position. My position is that these devices expose me to a larger corporate/governmental (you can't really separate the two) surveillance system. The person actually wearing the devices isn't really my main point of concern. > There's nothing illegal about that. I'm not talking about what's legal. I'm talking about what's acceptable and right.
        verdverm 8d ago
        > Huh? In what way? I was referring to phone vs glasses > My position is that these devices expose me to a larger corporate/governmental (you can't really separate the two) surveillance system. How do smart glasses change things from the phone you and everyone else (I assume) carry with us wherever us go? > I'm talking about what's acceptable and right. If you make public photography illegal, you also make illegal the capturing of things that are not acceptable or right. Remember when ICE murdered Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
    - EA-3167 9d ago
      Outside of this niche the people interested in cameras on their glasses is incredibly niche, while the desire not to be filmed covertly is almost universal. Phone cameras are hardly free from problems either, as upskirting shows. I would expect significant regulation before widespread acceptance and that rules out anything involving crooks like Meta. I also frankly suspect that if you were a typical target of this sort of behavior your attitude would be different.
      - verdverm 9d ago
        valid points, but if you have not been in good AR before, I don't think you can know how much better the experience is, to the point I believe people will stop focussing on the rare negatives and it will become as ubiquitous as the smart phone form factor is nearly there, FOV needs to be ~100° (~50° today, like having horse blinders on) this is my prediction anyhow, I could care less about the camera as a camera feature, but environmental awareness and enrichment is pretty awesome, MRTK had the interaction experience down, their system 8 years ago is still better than anything else I've seen today