Meta glasses extract personal info in real time
newatlas.com
newatlas.com
Pessimistic take: People will react against this, but only against the most-visible and least-critical part, the glasses themselves, rather than the rest of the iceberg.
Very Pessimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will want to use it and the Panopticon will be normalized.
I cannot honestly discern how this is any different from the status-quo of surveillance enforced by Google and Apple for commercial and governmental applications.
If it's normalized (or perhaps hypernormalized [0]) then being an "unscannable" [1] outlier may mean surprise and distrust from bespectacled passerby, and you can't even spend too long in a store before some nervous manager asks you to leave, and other sorts of markedly-worse things.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/adam-curtiss-...
[1] Idiocracy reference, albeit with barcode tattoos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81_NcN7yANM
I think you misunderstand, they aren't escorting you from the premises for not owning/wearing Techno-Glasses, they're doing it because they think it's "incredibly suspicious" that your face doesn't yield a gobs of information from various online databases.
That said, businesses already restrict admission if you don't own certain products: Just try going in without any clothes.
Am I really supposed to believe that Kroger won't let me shop there because they can't collect enough info on me as-is? And that it would be a big enough problem for me to consider wearing their glasses as opposed to... exercising my freedom as an individual and driving to Rite-Aid? It's just nonsense. The world you're trying to portray is fictional. There are rational, common-sense reasons why people aren't afraid of that.
> businesses already restrict admission if you don't own certain products: Just try going in without any clothes.
Businesses don't enforce that, public decency laws do. If nudism was a protected class you can bet your bare asscheeks the average business wouldn't comment on your genitalia. Seemingly lost to you is the idea that supermarkets want people to spend money at their store, which is why their surveillance is noninvasive.
Your hypothetical is bad, but moreover the premise of your fear is just ill-founded. Western society has already accepted surveillance into it's mainstream lifestyle and not a single person has gained significant traction from denouncing it. It's actually kinda cute how uttering "facebook" makes people scream "Cambridge Analytica!" but then saying "FIVE-EYES" or "Cellebrite" gets you sideways looks and upset glances. My mistake, I assumed hackers used this site for whatever reason.
_________
> > > how this is any different from the status-quo
> > If it's normalized [...] being an "unscannable" outlier may mean surprise and distrust from bespectacled passerby, and you can't even spend too long in a store before some nervous manager asks you to leave [...]
> My question is how any of this is different from the status-quo
See the answer I gave above.
Both examples involve a potential change in social mores, which introduces punishment or ostracization from everyday passerby and strangers, against faces that somehow aren't linked to a new-creepy-normal of easily accessible information.
In contrast, the status-quo today is that you can walk around almost anywhere and the people you pass or interact with will neither know nor care about if your face matches a half-dozen social media accounts with your life story and your family tree and your deepest fears.
_________
> > I think you misunderstand [...] they're [escorting you out] because they think it's "incredibly suspicious" that your face doesn't yield a gobs of information from various online databases.
> Am I really supposed to believe that Kroger won't let me shop there because they can't collect enough info on me as-is?
No, you're "supposed to" notice where I explicitly said it was due to the staff being suspicious.
Implicitly, that means suspicion of criminal intent, much the same way that a store manager might get nervous from some other clothing and behavior choices.
_________
> > I think you misunderstand, they aren't escorting you from the premises for not owning/wearing Techno-Glasses
> I understood your question just fine [...] Am I really supposed to believe [...] it would be a big enough problem for me to consider wearing their glasses
Please understand the part where explicitly said your eyewear is irrelevant. The problem has nothing to do with whether you are using the wearable lookup-tools to look up other people.
__________
> My mistake, I assumed hackers used this site for whatever reason.
A veiled insult on my hacker-ness, huh? Well, I'm going to get some sleep, and I suggest you do the same.
See! All you had to say is that a normal society wouldn't do this. That's my point - we've already done the surveillance half, and the part you're worried about is literally so unbelievable that it would require overhauling society. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't require you to aquiesce to additional surveillance because they literally have everything they could possibly ask for from your iPhone.
From a marketing, information collection, localization, security, optimization, coupon-hunting and privacy-oriented perspective - they don't need you to wear the fucking glasses. Your concerns are as displaced from reality as an alien attack, or worrying about Hitler rising from the dead.
> A veiled insult on my hacker-ness, huh?
It's not veiled at all. The "takes" you originally posted are goofy - real hackers worry about realistic hacks. Over here in reality, surveillance has already won and your only choice is whether you want your smartphone from Brand Tweedledee or Tweedledum Inc.
I was at Cedar Point this summer with my Ray Bans on and was told to take them off or I couldnt ride.
Half of those I talk to when wearing them have an issue with glasses with camera and the other half don't care with some being interested in getting their own.
In the future are people going to look at me strangely because I can't be identified by their AI eye implants? will I be excluded from businesses? public transport?