bennyelv

The premise here is that if someone wants to secretly record you, that it’s not possible or easy with a smartphone or some other kind of easily acquired camera. This unfortunately is completely wrong.

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.

Maybe I’m just more used to them. I see obvious camera in clearly identifiable smart glasses…

Yours might not, but what other people choose to do with their recordings is out of your control.

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.

Citations please. I’ve only seen glasses which are obviously meta glasses with a clearly visible camera.

Being filmed without your knowledge is happening all the time, these glasses haven’t moved the needle at all.

Right but if they stand near you and film you with a phone without directly interacting with you, it’s extremely difficult to notice that you’re being filmed.

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.

There are other plausible explanations to do with interacting with strangers generally. I don’t think he really made a point at all.

Right but the debate here is about “my gun is good and your gun is bad” rather than the right of anybody to have gun.

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.

This kind of hyperbole is nonsense. It’s a camera, being compared to other cameras. If your point doesn’t stand without dubious analogy then it’s not a very good point.

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…

Citation needed buddy…

This is a strange take…

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.

Why? Cameras are not banned, filming without consent is.

Also, you might as well hold up a sign that says “creep” with a big downward pointing arrow if you do something like that.

Think through how realistic an attack this really is…

What is going on that I don’t know about?

Yes your comment is incorrect. It’s completely free of the nuance and real moral debate that needs to be had and adds nothing interesting to the discussion.

How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?

If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.

Disagree. It’s very context dependent which would be more noticeable.

Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.

Why is it smaller in volume? Sure that’s the decision of the person and has nothing to do with the device?

When phones first had cameras, and people were not aware, it would have been easier to secretly film. But news flash, where I’m sitting right now in a cafe full of tech workers, nobody would notice if I started secretly filming on my phone.

If I wanted to secretly film, I’d be more confident of getting away with it using my phone than with a set of glasses which have a flashing light on them.

You’ll need to ban all cameras then. None of that is strictly related to glasses with a camera in themZ

You’ll have to explain how it’s different to recording something on any other phone or camera system…

Once you’ve cracked that one, you can get billing tenure by working out how to explain the Azure invoice….

Why is the problem assumed to be middle management? Maybe middle management is the only thing preventing the company going from successful dumpster fire to unsuccessful dumpster fire…

I disagree - it’s extremely easy to film on your phone covertly. If someone wants to film you without you noticing they will be able to do so.

I imagine you’re saying that as a software engineer :). As a manager of both software engineers and product managers, I think this view is a bit of a stretch.

Some software engineers would make good product managers, some product managers would make good software engineers, and the majority of both are best suited to their current job.

True, but the chance of you being healthy diminishes strongly over time, and the chance of you being as healthy as your younger self is probably zero.

Personally I'm not sure why people are fixating on this particular point - companies rarely tend to lay off their high performers. Sometimes they might axe entire divisions and that would include both high and low performers, but whenever it's not that the implication is clear.

I did spend the first half of my career in banking though, so maybe I've got a different baseline.

You should never be taking the advice on such a thing from the person who has a vested interest in you buying it.

Although you could well be right about the nature of the transaction, it's definitely a bad idea to be doing that with the bank!

Yes, the $5 wrench in action. The only protection against that is to not have the information on the device or in any account associated with or used from the device.

Impractical for a normal person who wants to just live their life.

I’d argue that what an NFT really is is a vehicle for laundering huge amounts of dirty money.

The banana, the angle of the banana the certificate itself are all theatre, designed to be a plausible high value good that can be created from thin air with the sole purpose of being an excuse to transfer someone some money that they can then claim to be legitimate earnings regardless of where the money originally came from.

Anyone who gets suckered into this scene without understanding its true nature is, well, a sucker.

Correct, as a London bike commuter for over a decade I can confirm that nobody in their right mind uses a shared cycle path. They’re dangerous for pedestrians, and you can’t make any kind of decent progress on them as they’re filled with bins, lampposts, blind driveways, and best of all even bus shelters. Then when you get to the end of it at some random point you’re not expecting there’s no way of joining a road without having to cede priority.

Kids riding to school is the only use case they satisfy.

I was aware of this being the case when dealing with consumers, but had assumed that because B2B contracts are assumed to be between 2 sophisticated parties that there is little legislative protection that could override the terms of the contract.

My understanding of law is generally UK based, but I'm not aware of legislation what would supersede a contract term limiting liability when the event that created the liability was one of general diligence/competence in carrying out the contract rather than relating to health and safety or some other area that is heavily legislated.

For that reason I'm unconvinced on the article's statement that this isn't just a "French Legal System" thing and that the same kind of judgement might be made in other jurisdictions.

My source: I review a lot of contracts. It's very common for things to be explicitly required.

Yes you can go back and forth and argue the toss, but it pushes up the cost of the sale and forces your customer to navigate a significant amount of bureaucracy to get a contract agreed. Or you could just run AV like they asked you to...