Just so we're clear and can read past the headlines. This database doesn't exist and there has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists. And I would obviously dump the ray bans if this was actually a thing.
I mean, it's literally in the name?
Why?
Given Meta's history of disregarding everyone who's not Zuck (and him being a sociopath), why give them the benefit of any kind of doubt? Right now, everyone should assume malice as the first explanation, and then accept that maybe there was some ineptitude once evidence appears.
So, nothing except the main sales pitch then?
> There is no Rayban data in Facebook
There is no war in Ba Sing Se?
I’d be happy to join some kind of rage-off at metas general practices but my claim was specifically just about the glasses data
The Meta glasses, like everything Meta does, is marketed as a tool for interacting with Meta's services. Including Facebook.
This was my only claim. Which remains true. Videos off of the glasses voluntarily posted on FB is no different than iPhone videos posted on FB so it has nothing to do with the glasses themselves. If your claim is “posting videos in FB is a bad idea”, I agree, I don’t do that but again, that has nothing to do with the glasses either. It doesn’t make posting easier or force me to opt-out of automatically posting or anything silly like that
And you can’t do any “facial recognition” against Facebook either. I’m glad meta figured out that was a pointless bad idea.
The technology exists to build it. The pipelines exist to populate it. The marketing engine exists to leverage it for targeted delivery of content.
And yet, somehow, nobody's built it?
How sure are you of that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
> And if it has been, where can I buy this?
Depending on your preference: their advertising portal, or a stock broker.
you can do that, but you have no clue as to why people/companies don't tend to do those things?
big tech ignoring gdpr, ignoring or working around privacy protections, their technology being easily abused for stalking or harassment with no effort put into curtailing bad behavior, location data being bought and sold, etc.
i think the only thing from your list i haven't seen in the news in the last couple of months is employees of big tech doing break & enters.
(and this is all before we even approach the topic of data breaches!)
we're talking about meta supposedly using facial recognition on the glasses to build a master database of faces or something
like if I was Zuckerberg I would not want to do that, it would lead to a congressional hearing and all kinds of lawsuits I'd imagine.
like where do we draw the line on plausible?
or do we just go and say yeah meta must be spying on everything and feeding everything to a database where they sell everything about you
like what about CCTV backups or robo vac camera feeds? should we assume that companies are deliberately sending all the data so they can sell raw video feeds and they just don't tell you?
I'm not counting in incompetence and data breaches, I'm talking about intentional stuff