112
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 51 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Meta said in a statement that privacy was top of mind when designing the glasses. “We know if we’re going to normalize smart glasses in everyday life, privacy has to come first and be integrated into everything we do,” the company said.

Ha.

I don't think Meta has the same idea of privacy than the people do. I mean, Meta having all the data hidden in their servers, being fed to AI and given to advertisement algorithms is privacy when the data is "anonymized" and held onto securely. Right?

[-] msage@programming.dev 10 points 10 months ago

No, privacy was their top priority - just not having it at all is the goal.

[-] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] VelveteenUnderground@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago

These things should be illegal

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 40 points 10 months ago

That's an easy fix. You see someone wearing them, you smash them. If it happens enough, people won't want them.

[-] SaintWacko@midwest.social 17 points 10 months ago

Yeah, get yourself arrested for assault! That'll show 'em!

[-] Bonehead@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago
[-] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

thank god she had the Glass to record the incident!

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

But the main problem is that the glasses don’t do much we can’t already do with phones.

This is enough to tell me they're not going to catch on. But even if they did somehow, i think it would be a short fad. I mean that meta et al would not be able to stop themselves from turning the glasses away from useful things and towards just being another ad serving platform.

[-] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

Glasses like these, plus MR headsets are going to merge into a very powerful set of glasses with AI that will end up replacing smartphones in the next decade as they really will offer more value.

[-] stallmer@sopuli.xyz 8 points 10 months ago

Just make your own that have an insane number of IR LEDs on them.

[-] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 6 points 10 months ago

I don't think that this catches on. However, the second this is included with lenses that act as transparent screens for AR stuff, it'll be flying off the shelves. No, not the very first model, not the second probably, but the one made by a large corporation that actually does it well.

Though tbh just the lenses / screens would do it, camera is just extra. So I actually think first they will get the lenses done and camera stuff ia added later when the rest is already commonly used.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

How are you supposed to do AR without the camera? The computer has to know the environment it is supposed to augment. Even though if you mean recording doesn't have to be part of the camera I would agree.

[-] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 months ago

I was more thinking of it being like a heads up display you know? It wouldn't be AR at that point sure, just a screen.

[-] taladar@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

I don't really see a screen with a transparent background that is constantly in front of your face catching on unless it is used for AR.

[-] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

I disagree, I'd get one if I could use it as a second monitor! Though if you can't navigate in the "screen", then it could be difficult. But yeah AR definitely would make things muuuch more interesting.

[-] tesseract@beehaw.org 6 points 10 months ago

A lot of stupid techno wannabes will think that this is cool and ruin it for everyone else. We need that laughing man tech from Ghost in a Shell.

[-] Overzeetop@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

I’m going to start out with the obvious- that most of these arguments are copypasta from a decade and a half ago when smartphones got cameras. Distracting. What about the gym? Easy for bad actors to abuse (OMGWTFBBQ!)

The glare from headlights comment was weird. Do the lenses not include an AR coating, or perhaps the author doesn’t normally wear glasses? I decided to check on that last one and was surprised that there was no by line, just a generic nyt link - not even to the article. Of course Brian X Chen appears to be a real NYT journalist, but in no other online pictures does he wear glasses, so I presume he doesn’t wear corrective lenses or he wears contacts. Not too surprising then that the glasses - and a big, black, fat-rimmed resin model at that - would be distracting, even outside of the decisions to record or not.

Which brings up the last bit - to record you have to initiate it. I presume this is for battery life, as powering the sensor, processing, and transmission to a storage device all take non-trivial amounts of power for a device that small. For the panicky fear of constant surveillance the article has I expected it was an always-on live-stream to the Meta servers that was occurring. Color me unimpressed.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 2 points 10 months ago

Where's the legally required recording light?

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

When the idiotic masses and paid influencers hop on board like they always do it will spur a bunch of companies to make similar and maybe one of them will be worth buying.

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
112 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy Guides

16832 readers
1 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.


You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...


Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!


This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.


Moderation Rules:

  1. We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
  2. This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
  3. No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
  4. Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
  5. Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
  6. Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
  7. News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
  8. Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
  9. No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
  10. No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
  11. Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
  12. General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS