If anyone wants to see the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o
He did harass them a bit. I'm looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!
He did harass them a bit. I'm looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!
Maybe I'm too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He's asking Meta employees questions, doesn't seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn't exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn't there have to be some intimidation or humiliation or similar for it to be harassment? Or asking employees what they think of the products they develop and support is the harassment part?
Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places, I thought we still cared a tiny sliver about privacy? It all went away when we all gave away our private data to the AI companies, or what's the deal?
There are a very large contingent on HN who are against restrictions on corporate activities because they envision themselves as potential beneficiaries of a low regulation environment. Many of them also apparently view criticism itself as a restriction.
I urge you to see the output of this:
"news.ycombinator.com".split(".")[1]Or search "nerd reich" or "tech fascism" here to see the instantly flagged topics.
1. You’ve inferred that the reason the glasses exist is to enable people to harass other people. That’s a very odd conclusion. 2. Where’s the without them knowing? Meta literally designed the hardware so that you do know that you’re being filmed, unlike almost every other camera on the market. 3. You haven’t managed to separate the decisions and accountability of an individual from the tool that they use to execute those decisions. This is a strange way to look at the world. It places inherent moral values into inanimate objects.
If someone holds their camera or a phone facing you directly you can guess they are filming you.
Normally looking glasses with a hidden camera is a Spywear from spy novels. The diode doesn't change much
If someone stands in front of you and interacts with you, firstly the camera in these glasses is not hidden and the glasses themselves are quite distinctive, and secondly, a light comes on exactly where you would be looking as you interact - next to their eyes.
On those two points, I’d argue that they’re exactly the same as phones or other cameras when it comes to being able to secretly record.
They’re nothing like glasses from spy novels, they’re extremely noticeable.
I would not call that "extremely noticeable". Perhaps it is extremely noticeable if you are familiar that a company makes normal looking glasses with cameras built in. But if you aren't, you might just assume that is some stylistic part of the glasses and not a tiny lens.
They have been around for a while. At some point it just became trendy to hate on them, but people are completely oblivious to the fact that you are more easily recorded secretly with smartphones. In fact, most viral content you see where someone is being recorded without their consent is from a smartphone, I have yet to see any such content filmed with actual smart glasses.
The camera is useful for many things besides recording video, but now we can’t have nice things because people think everyone with glasses is trying to creep on them.
It’s just generic AI/tech bubble rage.
Fuck meta and fuck every single of their employee, you can't keep building hell and complain when people hit back
I don't think blurring faces fully addresses that (though I'm not commenting on legality in Amsterdam).
I can see the argument that this video is in the public interest (hey, I'm Americanese), but it does seem plausible some people would find it a violation of a norm.
Meta and it's employees seem to have thought of a few.
Cameras exist. This is a camera. All cameras have the same problems this one. So why are we debating about this camera vs that camera rather than whether cameras should be allowed.
My perfectly normal camera does not stream shit to Meta servers or any other cloud. It's in fact fully offline. So, no.
Recording is one thing and sharing the same recording with a hostile foreign entity another.
Legally, many places have strict ban on publishing photos/recordings without consent, while photographing itself is generally allowed in public spaces.
This is before even getting into with issues of recordes d material being used as training material etc, which adds additional ethical and legal issues.
You may have a specific issue with the fact that the media goes through meta’s services, but that’s not the point that is being made in this thread.
All of the ethical and legal issues apply to all other cameras and camera footage too.
It is socially and in many cases legally forbidden to use cameras in many spaces.
The fact that the use of a camera is obvious is what makes it possible to sanction their inappropriate uses. With this piece of shit, it's not possible to tell at a glance that it is not being used, so we have to always assume that it's recording feature is being used.
The default usecase for it is socially and legally transgressive. That's what makes someone with a smartphone a normal person, while someone with these glasses an asshole.
---
If I'm in a store or a coffee shop, and there's someone wearing these glasses in it, I'll do the exact same thing as I would to someone conspicuously filming me with a camera - I'll ask staff to make that person put them away, or throw them out. For the same reason, anyone with them is not welcome in my home, nor any other space I have control over, and any establishment that welcomes people wearing them will not get any business from me.
If someone is motivated to secretly or inappropriately film, they will do so with whatever device they have. Having these glasses doesn’t tell you anything more about whether they’re that kind of person than the colour of their shirt.
Whether you will notice is entirely context and situation dependent. In some cases the glasses would be hard to notice, in others the use of a phone would be hard to notice.
So while your perspective that people who want to secretly film stuff should be unwelcome is quite reasonable, the test you apply to detect it is misdirected.
Lots places have laws like that. Maybe Meta shouldn't sell a device that makes it easy to do it anyway.
I realize the idea that rules exist even if you dislike the people they (momentarily) protect, even if those people have violated them, is a tough pill to swallow.
Edit: I do however agree with the sentiment.
That's wild. Their solved crime rate must be in the gutter.
If that's actual law that's a bit surprising. In many EU countries there are journalistic exceptions (which may or may not apply in this specific case depending on local law)
> (you also can't have a street facing surveillance camera like in the US)
And same here. Usually the limit is that if you do it within GDPR household exemption then you cannot have it facing street, but if you do it on GDPR scope then you need to fulfill the GDPR requirements (e.g. posting notice, be ready to answer GDPR requests, perform balancing tests for recording etc.).
If anything I think the employees are all nice people. I get the message but it's cringy to watch.
I'm also against cameras everywhere, but let's not pretend this is not all also possible with other devices.
Of course, Meta taking this down but not a lot of other, completely the same, stuff is the bad thing.
Let's not pretend being able to beat someone with a rock and shoot them with a M61 Vulcan at 6k rounds per minute are the same thing just because they involve projectiles.
Facebook started explicitly (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat...) as a way to creep on women.
The fact is that if you stood outside any company office, with a highly visible camera crew, and then asked people who were passing by whether they worked at that company, most of them would probably feel quite apprehensive.
They would also be apprehensive if there was no camera at all.
So what exactly is the point that is being made in this video? People are apprehensive when put into situations with other people where their intentions are not clear and there are signs that the intentions might be malicious. Very informative…
This kind of false equivalency is nonsense. Facebook's been making clear attempts to reduce the obviousness of their camera glasses.
The problem isn't "I get apprehensive when I see a camera". The problem is "I don't want to be filmed without my knowledge".
Being filmed without your knowledge is happening all the time, these glasses haven’t moved the needle at all.
https://www.ray-ban.com/usa/ray-ban-meta-ai-glasses
I'm supposed to peer closely at peoples' sunglasses to try and figure out if that little black-on-black dot is a camera versus a design embellishment?
> Being filmed without your knowledge is happening all the time…
Murders happen all the time. That doesn't mean I need to be pro-murder.
In any case: they are different because they are in the face all day long, they are not a device some needs to start using to record; they are not operated by the user, in the sense that the user does not show any active indication of recording (e.g. they are not holding the camera); they are similar to regular glasses, making it hard to distinguish;
and they do not clear indicate if they are recording (and don't tell me that the LED is enough)
Anyone could be filming at any time with their phones and go unnoticed, so I'm not sure what glasses are actually enabling.
All things you mentioned can be easily prohibited on photo-sensitive area. Perhaps phone is harder, but it's still easily get prohibited without hurting anything. Glasses so far is a requirement, not that easy to prohibit in an area.
It's already possible for people to surreptitiously record/snap on their phones in their hands today, because walking around with your phone in your hand is common. What additional evils are the glasses enabling, if your stance is that they are evil? Or why aren't phone cameras evil?
Just looking for a consistent principle here. First it was "Meta is evil" and then you switched to "the public is evil and Meta is enabling them with clear intention". If the second is true, then you must have clear stances on the current popular technology that everyone owns already.
People who don't know these "Meta glasses" exist (and they shouldn't need to), would have no idea that the thing is even capable of recording.
It's subterfuge and while you could argue that this subterfuge was "unintentional", but imho that's mincing words, and also given that it's Meta, not entirely in good faith.
Can I assume that you have good enough eye sight that you don't need to wear glasses if you choose to? Because as somebody who is absolutely dependent on glasses as a serious aid, it leaves a very bad taste they are literally hiding the recording device in a disability aid.
I don't think making them glasses is "gross". It seems like a natural evolution of cameras to me. Even before Google Glass they were thrown around as an idea in scifi for decades. It's cool to me, but I understand public opinion isn't with me, and I'm fine with that.
I don't think most people would recognize the meta glasses as something that could be recording. Especially if you cover or disable the recording LED light that is supposed to come on.
If everyone is wearing the glasses, wherever you go, you'll be filmed all the time, with most people not bothering to ask.
Poor Tracy in accounts probably doesnt give 2 hoots about meta glasses, shes just an accountant and maybe she doesnt even know they exist. But now shes getting harassed by idiots with cameras as she goes into the office because of something another department on the other side of the country did.
If you were doing it to Zuck himself or following round the head of the smart glasses department then it might be different, but harassing general employees of meta is no better than any other company. These are normal people no matter where they work.
If we aren't allowed to ever criticize anybody because they were just following orders, where would we be?
"Situational irony e.g. Mr. Smith gets a parking ticket. This is ironic because Mr. Smith is a traffic warden."
I've said this out loud several times while reading the comments defending Meta under this post.
It's so interesting to see so many weak or misdirecting justifications. It's almost as if people are here to attempt to control the narrative for financial reasons.
If I enter a public space I consider that anybody could watch me at any time, therefore I am always careful in public and always consider that walking out of my property is consenting to anybody else seeing me. Cameras are already everywhere.
Personally I dont see a difference between someone watching me on the street or recording me and watching it back. Its just no different to me.
This video mainly shows a person approaching other people in public and recording them with these glasses. Which is one of the typical scenarios in which such a glasses are probably going to be used. And that video shows that even the Meta employees themselves generally do not seem to like it very much.
That is the point.
1) Can I use it to watch a more immersive movie without bothering people who may be in the next week?
2) Can I use it to make my games more enjoyable, either console or PC?
3) Can I use it to record IPSC/USPSA matches?
4) Can I use it for work?
I don't, which I why I didn't say that :)
I'm not sure how it follows that glasses will encourage more of that behavior.
Not to mention the sarcastic, insincere tone he adopts after being asked what he's doing, claiming he's "such a huge fan" of the Meta glasses. There is a way to draw attention to privacy and this is a poor way to go about it.
[1] Cambridge Dictionary: 'behavior that annoys or upsets someone'
People also use smartphones to take upskirt photos without any shutter sound (arguably much easier than this guy physically bending over) but if someone was protesting phone cameras then doing that to people in public for some video wouldn't be some gotcha 'dunk'. At best it'd merely be controversial.
For a high effort pushback of Meta Glasses see the lenticular They Live vandalism of Meta's bus stop ad[1]. It hits the same goal this video author was trying to make, is actually clever and doesn't leave itself open to critique. Didn't require video removal on platforms to get the attention of articles either.
[1] https://hyperallergic.com/guerrilla-london-bus-ads-mock-kyli...
Well, I’m looking forward of Meta going down. Now that would benefit the Internet.
After that, I think the fact that these glasses are allowed in the first place creates a problem that Meta as a platform cannot fix, because Meta is just one of the many many places where videos can be posted.
The argumentative method of rather than saying and doing what you believe and instead doing and saying what you are opposed to, is always weak and usually a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.
That being said. I agree 100% with making Meta Employees feel uncomfortable with their own products.
If you judge this video without any kind of context, then yes he is a weirdo harassing strangers who are just trying to go about their day. The point is that these glasses enable this weird behavior, and the people he's filming are (ostensibly) part of that system.
It's obvious he's making a point, but there is no harassment that I see.
FFS ... it's this kind of goal-post shifting that ends with sign-holding grannies being arrested for terrorism.
It's fine if you're doing it to benefit them, then you can go much further, you can kill small children with your tractors (as is attempted in The Netherlands) or to murder coast guards or migrant (via drowning or fire) as happens in the UK.
Realized too late into the video that I had to switch to original track
They've broken Android too, you can't even set it up with multiple languages. I use three daily - Dutch / English / American - and also a bit of German / French / Spanish / Italian here and there. Plus of course Latin because on my English side I'm a pretentious prick :-)