Hacker News Reader

Comment by Janicc | Hacker News Reader

I think the pushback will be pretty insignificant simply based on the fact that compared to Google Glass, they really don't stand out as much.

View on HN

Doesn't that make the privacy concerns that people previously had even more prominent?

Do you have an expectation of privacy in public?

I have an expectation that people I'm speaking with aren't filming me without making it clear that they're doing so. Anyone doing otherwise I consider a creep and would rather not interact with.

Do also note that people wear glasses in private settings as well as public.

The glasses have a light on when recording. The light cannot be disabled.

Your can't draw over it with a marker? What about the microphones? Will this still be the case in the next generation or in glasses produced by other manufacturers?

No, if you cover the light, it will refuse to take photos or videos. Who cares about the next glasses from another manufacture? We are talking about the current Meta glasses that just came out.

I care and presumably other people with the same outlook care, that's why I was asking.

You're trying to assuage my concerns with the information about the light. That's Meta responding to these concerns and taking efforts to avoid upsetting anyone.

But once the market is proven then another set of glasses will be marketed as having the feature of silent recording. By that time the force of the market will be too great and my concerns will be laughed at and I'll be called a luddite and told I never should have had an expectation of privacy to begin with.

This is the embrace before the inevitable extinguish.

The only solution to your concerns are legislation, and that is not going to happen in America as everyone has a video camera in their pocket and the 1st amendment exists. Private establishments are free to make rules regarding the use of these on their grounds assuming that the user is not using them for a disability related service.

I'm aware of that of course. No one can turn the tide against the market. But why do they bother, then, with the whole show of making it only record with a light? You agree that that's just theatre to seem less invasive than they inevitably will be?

I'm not based in the US so hopefully some local laws will help me out a bit, but at the end of the day, the law is not my moral barometer. I will respect the rights of the users of these devices while also exercising my own rights, as much as I am able to, to treat them as social pariahs.

I think you are very confused about what a reductio ad absurdum is. It is not a fallacy, it’s a perfectly valid form of argument (similar to a ‘proof by contradiction’ in maths), and it doesn’t seem to be what you mean here.

Thanks, I'll look into it and update my comment.

But aren't the lenses more obvious on these? Just looked at the Glass and I guess they are about as obvious as the lense on that but the glass stands out more for sure because of its design (which I loved).

These look like ordinary sunglasses while google glasses were akin to a dragonball z accessory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com