Hacker News Reader

Comment by Vinnl | Hacker News Reader

I felt a bit uneasy when the employees indicate they're uncomfortable with the filming and he asks them why, while continuing to film. Given how they're blurred out and that their discomfort is kind-of the point w.r.t. the issue he's trying to raise, I don't think this meets the bar that Meta usually adheres to when it comes to taking down videos, but describing it as "a bit" of harassment doesn't sound too wrong to me.

View on HN

They feel uncomfortable with being filmed while going about their day to day life? Maybe they should stop making products that enable such a thing.

How do these glasses "enable" it any more than a gopro, a security camera, or the phone that nearly every person in the developed world already has?

Others are making it wrong doesn't justify another wrong.

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)

because these always-available features changes the threshold for it happening

Is it not currently always available on the phones we're carrying?

Do you strap your phone to your face?

No, but like many people I've seen while travelleing and hitting a bunch of tourist spots this past summer, I do openly carry my phone in my hand, and I'm in a sea of people doing the same. And if I'm commuting to work, I'm reading on my phone, if I'm in the waiting room at the doctor, I'm reading on my phone. My phone is always out and so is everyone else's.

Anyone could be filming at any time with their phones and go unnoticed, so I'm not sure what glasses are actually enabling.

Behavior like this will one day causing "no glasses beyond this point" rule, which will also hurts people that really need to use glasses.

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.

Because it's intentionally a camera that blends into normal clothing so it's less obvious you are being filmed.

It's intentionally a camera that doesn't need to be held and it matches the the POV of the wearer. Where has Meta said it's intentionally designed to be hidden?

Does Meta have a reputation about being honest about what it's doing? This is the company that just lost a $17 billion lawsuit for endangering children.

Asking genuinely: what are you saying? Do they intend to use the cameras for evil, and the physical form enables them beyond how they are currently enabled by iPhones and non-iPhones now?

Are you asking if people intend to use pervert glasses for evil?

I am asking if Meta intends to do so. And to the new question you've added, I guess my question back is "why not just ban cameras from smartphones if they can be equally used for evil"?

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.

No it looks like a pair of glasses.

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 first needed glasses in 4th grade. There hasn't been much time I can remember in my life where I haven't required them to function normally. Save for like, walking to the bathroom in the middle of the night.

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.

Most people would recognize a gopro, or a security camera, or a phone held in a certain way as something that is recording or likely to be recording.

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.

The comment to which you're responding didn't claim the glasses enabled it more than some other device does. And these employees don't work for the companies that make those devices. You can see how your question is irrelevant whataboutism right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com