[flagged]
I don't see anyone saying that people don't have the right to use them. I see people saying that they have the right to avoid being anywhere near the people who use them and to disapprove of those people. Which is just as much of a right as the right to wear spy glasses.
I think that's true in principle, but in practice there are going to be two kinds of smart glasses users; extraordinarily annoying kids or you adults acting annoying in public so they can post videos to social media, and then normal people who have no clear sense for how much they're violating the privacy of those around them, and just like cool tech.
Very, very few users are going to be an interesting or valid use case -- eg: someone who is using them to assist with a disability, or for research, or something.
Even most dash cams don't stream to Meta -- they just record the last _n_ hours and you need to know to save off the video if you're in an crash / incident. In other words, most of the time no privacy is violated, and the only potential privacy violation occurs during an incident.
Even policy body cams, which I wholeheartedly support, have some pretty strong downsides: currently, if you're at the end of your rope, having the worst day of your life, and in your dishevelment turn a speeding ticket into a BATLEO, you're famous forever for being a lunatic. Maybe the rest of the time you're a good person, and you can learn from this and move on. Except now you have a permanent albatross around your neck. This is a secondary penalty that the justice system did not intend, and has no answer for.
It makes a lot of sense for actual accessibility devices to be offline-capable. You don’t want to lose your “sight” when you step into a metal building or elevator.
For parents smart glasses are awesome, no need to pull out a phone to take a picture. No need to view the world through a phone screen.
They are also useful as being regular BT headphones as well. Podcasts while walking w/o tiny earbuds to lose.
You realize smart glasses have a battery that allows for all of 15 to 20 minutes of recording right?
Hell just turning on wake word detection for asking it questions murders the battery life and it is one of the first things people turn off.
The phone in your pocket reports your position to multiple ad agencies throughout the day. Stores track individual's movements throughout their buildings and see what aisles people linger at.
15 minutes of video recording via glasses (versus on a smart phone, or go pro, or drone) is not some huge mass surveillance issue.
You then list a mere two categories.
Would your argument have been similar in 2008 if told that in ten years, everyone in the economic first world would be carrying multiple cameras including a dedicated "selfie" camera at all times?
None of the cameras you're mentioning are pointed at people all the time.
When you are wearing Meta glasses, they are.
My wider point is that there are already many obvious use cases, and as adoption of cameras which are always on or plausibly always on rises, there will be a lot more, including augmented reality, translation, context hinting, AI agent awareness for assistants and personal security, and at least dozens of others, some of which I am sure no one has started building for, yet.
Meta is probably not the winner in this space (or, I hope not, at least, so we agree there!). However, the idea that people have a right to remember and process what they see and hear in full fidelity is pretty basic, in my opinion.
If that's what we were talking about, I'd be much less bothered. But it's not. What we're talking about is people recording others and feeding that data to a third party.
no? You think what I wrote is just a scary way to frame GPS? Maybe that's because you're part of the conspiracy!
body cams are local and mostly used by law enforcement to guarantee they are not abusing their power.
glassholes are connected to the cloud. you may have the right to record on public space, i have the right to remain anonymous in the crowd and not be constatly targeted by an advertisement company.
Even if 1% of the corner cases are legit uses (blind people having the glasses describe the world around them is fantastic.) 99% of the people using them are assholes that deserve to be put in the ground and the glasses smashed.
Edit: Not that I would want Meta to get all that data anyway. But even if glasses exist which are more privacy conscious, I think Meta and Google Glass thoroughly ruined the reputation of any kind of wearable like this.
Of course you have to be able to spot that. And trust that it really doesn't record when it's off (note that it simply may be covered by the user)
Also I just googled for what the light actually looks like when it's recording, and it's not even really that visible...
This alone doesn't outweigh all of the negative uses, but I would argue that it's reasonable and legitimate.
Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know.
There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras pointed at the street that record people every time they go out in public in any urban setting.
At least this says something about the intention. Someone who films with a hidden phone implicitly shows that they intentionally hid this from the people being filmed.
Filming with glasses is hidden by design. It gives plausible deniability to the person filming, so they can film covertly but pretend they weren't hiding anything.
In most cases this doesn't make a difference but there are some cases where the premeditation can make it worse for the person doing the "abusive" filming.
Big assumption here that the place you're on vacation doesn't have different laws. You may have absolutely no right to record "everything and everyone" around you.
Subject to local law. It's an offence to make indecent images of children, for example.
However, it is absolutely not the case that Meta has a right to that data, as a data controller under GDPR.
> feels at risk
This is a red flag phrase: it's a justification that people whip out for all sorts of unjustified things up to and including murder.
Ease off the gas
But I'd like to have some smart glasses that do respect my privacy and offer this kind of functionality. Honestly, most of the things smart glasses do today are stuff I'd really like. Having my glasses just be the bone conduction headphones I often wear anyways? Check. Easy access to taking photos and short videos of life experiences? Love it. Integrated into the thing I'm often wearing on my head anyways? Perfect.
Oh blind people too. That one makes sense.
But smart glasses that send everything to The Cloud? Burn them all. Especially if they're from fricken' Meta.
None of those default to sharing your recording with anyone else, let alone with no practical way to opt out.
Why is it a right?
>Are you going to go after car cameras next?
No. A car cannot follow me into a building very easily. It cannot turn as quickly as a human head.
>Any American who has any opposition to public recording is violating the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American.
lmao
I do not want my employees recording their day job and selling it, or the creepy dude next to me in the bathroom filming my goods or the log jam flying out of my butt so meta can try to sell me pepto.
I also don't want that one time I did something minor illegal like jay walking get auto fed into palantir so they can ship me to the latest internment camp.
Or someone stealing my biometrics by just walking past me.
I do not want to live in such a dystopian country. No this right shouldn't exist and I'm glad it doesn't in my country.
> If none of this makes sense to you, wait till standalone cameras become much smaller to where they become a smartbutton -- what will you do then?
Why are you against killing? Wait till you don't need to hit them but can accelerate metal pieces at them -- what will you do then?
> Any American who has any opposition to public recording is fighting the First Amendment and doesn't even deserve to be an American.
Anyone who is against X deserves not to be protected by law. "First they came for the communists..."
Smartphones are illegal in your country? I am skeptical.
The right to record is the right to remember.
Is the law applied equally, so that businesses, police officers, and government agencies are also not allowed to record in public?