Hacker News Reader

Comment by HumblyTossed | Hacker News Reader

Is this an honest argument? Surely you can think of how glasses might be ... in a different league than the two items you mention?

View on HN

Unless you are using these during sex I consider a microphone to be 10x more privacy intruding than a camera.

Security cameras afaik usually don't record audio, but all phones can. And they don't even need to be pointed in any specific direction.

Many security cameras have the ability to record audio. Depending on where you are, it might be illegal to use it. All the cams I have purchased have it. That would include ReoLink and a recommended model from the Frigate site.

Because person wearing glasses usually can move and video surveillance cameras usually can't? If that's not it then spell it out for me, please. Also, why would i be deceptive in this discussion? I feel like I missed some ideological conflict.

Imagine someone pulling up a smartphone and then recording everything that happens around them. Contrast that with someone wearing smart glasses and doing that exact same thing.

On a separate note, (and this is a genuine question) are you by any chance aware the term Non-consensual intimate imagery / NCII?

I am beginning to suspect that the average HN goer isn’t aware of the scope and scale of the Trust and Safety problem.

Have you heard the term non consensual intimate fantasies? I've heard it's an even bigger problem.

Well, you would fortunately be wrong. Fantasies are commonplace and well studied in society, psychology and even in the law.

The issue is when you go from fantasy to actually enacting it, which is usually when you earn the epithet of “Creep”.

Also, why make a throwaway for this line? I take it you haven’t heard of NCII?

They don't care. Or they refuse to realize that tech isn't the solution to it, but an amplifier of it's scale.

Can tell you that my urge to take photos/record drastically dips around other people. Particularly if it were meant for any sort of commercial exploitation. Stephenson called people wired for max indiscriminate data collection/processing "gargoyles". Personally I prefer glassholes.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-borg-of...

I admit it's hard to care for what you people can't even articulate

Why dont you state what it is you think isn’t clear?

That way we can figure out what it is that’s confusing or unclear and then see it you find it has any moral moral significance.

Someone pulling up a smartphone on me would feel hostile because it's violating a social contract. Maybe I'd feel betrayed and attacked if it turned out someone was recording me using glasses, but I don't know, I don't care about dashcams and this is not that much different. I imagine it feels bad and scary for women when someone takes creepshots of them, and this tech does open opportunities for that. Maybe that would be enough for me to hate glasshats if I had a bit of empathy. But isn't the genie already out of the bottle with 'deep nude' models available for everyone forever?

No, i don't think I've heard about NCII before, and Trust and Safety sounds like some corporate PR whitewashing term to me.

1> Genie out of the bottle: Yes and no. Nudification is a growing problem, non consensual intimate imagery is a current problem. AI related tools for image gen still require some amount of skill, and that is reducing its blast radius.

2> NCII: Years ago, I was scoping reddit to identify content that was harmful from an Indian perspective. By far the largest category was NCII. This could range from morphed images, to intimate images reshared, to images from their socials reshared in thirst communities. This included images of underage children.

Removing NCII is rough. First the victim has to be willing to come forward and get over the shame. Then they have to deal with a near impossible system and get someone to help. The more conservative the nation, the less likely the support networks will be forgiving or helpful. Finally, once the data is out there, it’s going to be reflected across multiple sites which are in international jurisdictions.

This is one of the situations where, I fear, your life is simply hosed.

Korea is another country which has a severe problem with NCII, and I believe they even instituted laws against deepfaked porn.

>PR whitewashing: Heh. Well thats the division that deals with online safety, fraud, content moderation, policy and the rest. I believe eBay was the first firm to use that term when they were handling fraud.

Not meaningfully. Anyone holding a smartphone might be recording you. You’d better avoid them if you don’t want to be recorded.

Someone has to hold smartphone and point it at you.

This line makes a valid point. People record strangers all the time. In an obvious way or trying to be sneaky.

Just because you don’t notice it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

However, this is still a different thing than smart glasses which can further be segmented into who designed the smart glasses.

Most people don't run around holding out their smartphone directly in front of them. It has to be pointed at the subject, and tends to be obvious.

Smart glasses, however, are always aimed at whatever the wearer is looking at. They may or may not be recording (note the reports of people hiding the LED indicators), and at a fair distance could easily be mistaken for a normal pair.

The general populace is much more likely to notice the former recording rather than the latter.

I've seen people keep their phone in their shirt pocket. The only reason it tends to be obvious is that most people aren't trying to be covert. Those aren't the ones you should be worried about.

Don’t forget that audio recording is a thing. The camera doesn’t have to be pointed at you to violate your privacy. Plus I bet you walk past 90% (or more) of all cameras without ever noticing them. You only notice someone’s glasses because they are novel, not because they are more likely to record you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com