WeltzeitgeistMar 4

We, as a society, have to bully all people who wear those glasses. They have to be excluded form all social gatherings and we have to make fun of them everywhere they go.

But why THE FUCK are Meta workers watch the material? Ah, it's Meta. Of course, they're watching.

Show threadBrahmsMar 4

@wackJackle out of interest: is the problem that its meta (and the massive privacy problem) or the "smart" glasses by themselves?

this would be something, if properly working as free soft/hardware, that I would love to play around with, cutting out all the privacy violating stuff.

it its the glasses themselves, can you elaborate?

Show threadCassandrichMar 5
@brahms @wackJackle It's not your privacy they're violating. It's the privacy of every other person you encounter while wearing them. It doesn't make it any better that you personally are the one violating their privacy, rather than letting Facebook do it for you. Either way it's a violation and not acceptable.
Show threadBrahmsMar 5

@dalias @wackJackle yeah, if the use of smart glasses imply a privacy violation. What if it doesnt? I find the assumption quite irritating.

It is quite easy to imagine a use that doesnt touch anyones "privacy" other than "seeing" them. my question is, are people uncomfortable by the mere existence of such glasses? How would a project engage these people and mitigate those worries? or is this something that will never work?

Show threadCassandrichMar 5
@brahms @wackJackle It does. That you see this as a probem to solve rather than a boundary to respect is deeply concerning and is what's wrong with the entire fucking "tech industry".
Show threadCassandrich

@brahms @wackJackle You do not "engage with people" and "mitigate their worries" when you want to do something to them that they don't want done to them.

You fuck off and stop doing it.

Mar 5 at 5:00pmWeb
Show threadBrahmsMar 5

@dalias maybe the choice of words was poor, sorry for that.

though what I am doing is asking others who obviously have strong objections and trying to understand what they object to (btw, I am full on your position about the privacy topic).

i am talking about a hypothetical implementation that neither stores nor sends any data that would be relevant. Maybe that is technically not possible, but then I wouldnt use It anyway.

Show threadCassandrichMar 5

@brahms What you're not understanding is that nobody you face with those glasses on has any basis for knowing or trusting whether there's a claim that they don't store or send anything. All they see is a camera pointed at them.

Even if they did, you could still be doing plenty of harm without storing or sending anything. You could for example be a running a local model trying to identify them.

Assuring people that this is not happening is not possible but should not be the point. The point is that if someone doesn't want you pointing a camera at them, you don't point a camera at them.

And until you find out, you don't point it at them.

Show threadBrahmsMar 5
@dalias its embarassingly obvious when pointed out like that! Thank you!