Clickbait warning. This has nothing to do with the Meta smart glasses. They're just a means of taking pictures of people without them noticing. But you could do the same with any internet connected camera / phone etc.
How does that automatically dox people? I have a load of photos of people who I got in the background. I don't magically know their names.
they do some reverse image search on the internet and find your facebook profile or similar things.
Not that I have a Facebook profile, but even if I did, that would only give them access to information that I made public.
Doxing requires you to release information that you otherwise would keep private.
It won't let them know my bank account details or my home address or my medical history or anything like that.
Yeah, as I said it's clickbait and not "proper" doxing. What I've been annoyed with are old newspaper articles. Sometimes you'll find some articles with a picture and a full name citing some sports achievements from when you were 17 or did some public activity with the boy scouts or some other club. Usually including pictures, full name and location. Which isn't great and you have less control over that than over a facebook or linkedin profile...
Sometimes an employer also has a "the team" page on their website with mugshots of everyone. That can be used to annoy people, stalk them or call the employer and so some nasty stuff.
I usually don't tell people my last name. Or I write pseudonomously on the internet, to make doxing a bit more complicated. And I don't post pictures of myself. That's all I can do. And quite some years ago I tried contacting some reverse image search providers. But it was difficult to get them to get rid of the pictures.
It's not necessarily just the information out there. Being able to connect it also makes people more vulnerable. I wouldn't call it doxing, though. That term has a meaning. Usually it has to include at least an address or an employer or some private information that isn't readily available.
so, reverse doxing?
Op has over 3800 posts in under a year. Yikes. Either bot or one smelly keyboard warrior
Eh, they probably just have a feed and post a bunch all at once. I've seen other posters do something similar. Creating 10-15 lemmy posts/day isn't particularly hard if you're literally just copy/pasting links from an RSS feed.
Not saying it's difficult nor all that time consuming. If you are creating 10+ posts a days, rss feed or not you need to revaluate your free time. Essentially you're attempting to sway the opinions of strangers online, all day everyday there's no other reason for that many posts other than attempting to sway others opinions. And that's fucking lame dude
I think it's just attention grabbing, the same thing that motivated people to do it on Reddit (having people recognize your username). I doubt OP is putting a lot of thought into what gets posted (i.e. no agenda), they're merely looking for lots of engagement.
That's even worse. They are then like a stray dog or cat begging for scraps. Sad as fuck really
Perhaps, idk. It's really hard to tell someone's motivations just by looking at posting frequency.
I don't agree.. He/ she or they / them or who the heck ever posts a TON of left leaning political propaganda. Now, I despise trump and musk and pretty much anyone on the right and consider myselfvery far left. But I don't post 10+ times a day about it.
If that's not political motivational posting then what is??
One look at their profile will show the motivation
Perhaps. But this article has nothing to do with left/right ideology. So while they definitely seem to be socialist, I'm not convinced their frequent posting is politically motivated, I think they just have a curated feed, and that includes socialist stuff.
I consider myself pretty centrist and despise both the political left and right. I consider myself Libertarian, and this election has left me really scratching my head because pretty much everything both candidates are pushing for the wrong direction IMO (I don't like tariffs, value balancing the budget, price controls suck, etc).
So I strongly disagree w/ OP's political ideology, but I still don't really have an issue with the posts they make. If I think it's leftist noise, I usually just move on to the next one, but if it's a high quality article, I'll upvote.
it is annoying when they do that; i would, however, venture that these glasses probably give people a way of doing things more surreptitiously, even though this article doesn't explore that
Yeah, they mention that it's unsuspicious glasses by the look. We'll have to see what this comes to... When google introduced their Google glasses, people got yelled at on the streets, at least as far as I remember.
I don't think anyone actually got yelled at for wearing them. they were pretty rare to see. I know people who wore them all the time
One disabled guy who posted about it got physically attacked and his glasses broken.
Google Glass stood out like a sore thumb, especially when it was first introduced. These have a form factor that is based on traditional sunglasses.
So exactly like browsing facebook in the early days?
Meta could build a set of glasses that lets me view Pluto, washes the dishes, and gives me a loving blowjob, and I wouldn't let them get within 10m of me.
Why do you need the glasses, can't you take the picture with your phone?
Because people get suspicious when somebody is taking pictures of every stranger they come across, but people looking at passersby while wearing glasses is normal.
Just pretend to be a travel YouTuber, or a live streamer.
The glasses are just less obvious than me pointing my phone at you and snapping a picture
It isn't as obvious as shoving phone infront to take photos, whereas glasses are more incognito
It's wild to me that this hasn't become the news of the day.
If I were RayBan I would jump ship right now before brand image is tanked. Why would you trust anyone wearing RayBans after this?
You can do this with any camera, including the one in all the phones out there. The only thing specific to the glasses is that it's more convenient and inconspicuous to be wearing it on your face.
Might as well have put the iPhone in the title for more clickbait. Anyone dedicated enough can make or buy tons of different kinds of wearables that could do the same.
The key issue is that such a database exists and is so easily searchable.
First of all bullshit. Try me. A modicum of effort towards privacy would protect you from this. Seems like a healthy way to bring attention to the bigger issue at play here.
Also - awesome. I have terrible propsagnosia. It's crippling socially and especially for me in the workplace and and my scientific career (there's a decent amount of networking and ass kissing in science, and if you can't keep track of people at all it's tough to play along). I'd love something like this - congrats to the devs.
You can have tools for recognition and not identification. Identification likely includes information that someone did not intend to share with you.
I have semi face-blindness, it takes several meetings before I can start recognising a person's face. Something like this would actually be a lifesaver for me, just so I can know who I'm talking to and whether I've met them before.
I don't have many issues, but my memory can sometimes suck, so I would also like something like this.
But not from Meta. I need to be 100% in control of the data before I'd ever feel comfortable wearing them in public.
Now just imagine AI being given this type of access.
I imagine they have this stuff internally classifying photos and faces.
porn has driven every digital invention from vhs to web. metas stupid glasses will be sold out when you get a realtime nude-filter. coz then everyone would also accept ads in the fiel of view.
Ew...
And yet the world goes on and cameras still exist.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
