It's things like this that make me glad I'm an anti social arsehole.
In the future are people going to look at me strangely because I can't be identified by their AI eye implants? will I be excluded from businesses? public transport?
Optimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will collectively realize the privacy problem and take steps against it.
Pessimistic take: People will react against this, but only against the most-visible and least-critical part, the glasses themselves, rather than the rest of the iceberg.
Very Pessimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will want to use it and the Panopticon will be normalized.
> Very Pessimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will want to use it and the Panopticon will be normalized.
I cannot honestly discern how this is any different from the status-quo of surveillance enforced by Google and Apple for commercial and governmental applications.
If it's normalized (or perhaps hypernormalized [0]) then being an "unscannable" [1] outlier may mean surprise and distrust from bespectacled passerby, and you can't even spend too long in a store before some nervous manager asks you to leave, and other sorts of markedly-worse things.
If businesses ever restrict admission to users that don't own certain products, we are going to have a lot bigger problems on our hands than worrying about Meta fucking our privacy.
> If businesses ever restrict admission to users that don't own certain products
I think you misunderstand, they aren't escorting you from the premises for not owning/wearing Techno-Glasses, they're doing it because they think it's "incredibly suspicious" that your face doesn't yield a gobs of information from various online databases.
That said, businesses already restrict admission if you don't own certain products: Just try going in without any clothes.
I understood your question just fine, I'm not going up to bat for Meta here. My question is how any of this is different from the status-quo of CCTV surveillance, WiFi signal tracking for shopping heatmaps, collecting your cart history for personalized coupons, using your face to identify you and then aggregating additional data on your profile from commercial providers like Onavo or i2 Group.
Am I really supposed to believe that Kroger won't let me shop there because they can't collect enough info on me as-is? And that it would be a big enough problem for me to consider wearing their glasses as opposed to... exercising my freedom as an individual and driving to Rite-Aid? It's just nonsense. The world you're trying to portray is fictional. There are rational, common-sense reasons why people aren't afraid of that.
> businesses already restrict admission if you don't own certain products: Just try going in without any clothes.
Businesses don't enforce that, public decency laws do. If nudism was a protected class you can bet your bare asscheeks the average business wouldn't comment on your genitalia. Seemingly lost to you is the idea that supermarkets want people to spend money at their store, which is why their surveillance is noninvasive.
Your hypothetical is bad, but moreover the premise of your fear is just ill-founded. Western society has already accepted surveillance into it's mainstream lifestyle and not a single person has gained significant traction from denouncing it. It's actually kinda cute how uttering "facebook" makes people scream "Cambridge Analytica!" but then saying "FIVE-EYES" or "Cellebrite" gets you sideways looks and upset glances. My mistake, I assumed hackers used this site for whatever reason.
*sigh* I don't want to rephrase and retype just to be ignored again, so it's time for our old friend nested-quotes.
_________
> > > how this is any different from the status-quo
> > If it's normalized [...] being an "unscannable" outlier may mean surprise and distrust from bespectacled passerby, and you can't even spend too long in a store before some nervous manager asks you to leave [...]
> My question is how any of this is different from the status-quo
See the answer I gave above.
Both examples involve a potential change in social mores, which introduces punishment or ostracization from everyday passerby and strangers, against faces that somehow aren't linked to a new-creepy-normal of easily accessible information.
In contrast, the status-quo today is that you can walk around almost anywhere and the people you pass or interact with will neither know nor care about if your face matches a half-dozen social media accounts with your life story and your family tree and your deepest fears.
_________
> > I think you misunderstand [...] they're [escorting you out] because they think it's "incredibly suspicious" that your face doesn't yield a gobs of information from various online databases.
> Am I really supposed to believe that Kroger won't let me shop there because they can't collect enough info on me as-is?
No, you're "supposed to" notice where I explicitly said it was due to the staff being suspicious.
Implicitly, that means suspicion of criminal intent, much the same way that a store manager might get nervous from some other clothing and behavior choices.
_________
> > I think you misunderstand, they aren't escorting you from the premises for not owning/wearing Techno-Glasses
> I understood your question just fine [...] Am I really supposed to believe [...] it would be a big enough problem for me to consider wearing their glasses
Please understand the part where explicitly said your eyewear is irrelevant. The problem has nothing to do with whether you are using the wearable lookup-tools to look up other people.
__________
> My mistake, I assumed hackers used this site for whatever reason.
A veiled insult on my hacker-ness, huh? Well, I'm going to get some sleep, and I suggest you do the same.
On the flip side businesses could restrict Ray Ban Meta glasses wearers. Amusement parks have that rule that you can wear your glasses on their rides but not smart glasses that record video.
I was at Cedar Point this summer with my Ray Bans on and was told to take them off or I couldnt ride.
Used my Ray Ban (Metas) since last October almost daily. Im just using it to capture my life when needed without the need to have my phone. Also, asking the glasses for the time.
Half of those I talk to when wearing them have an issue with glasses with camera and the other half don't care with some being interested in getting their own.
It's things like this that make me glad I'm an anti social arsehole.
In the future are people going to look at me strangely because I can't be identified by their AI eye implants? will I be excluded from businesses? public transport?
Optimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will collectively realize the privacy problem and take steps against it.
Pessimistic take: People will react against this, but only against the most-visible and least-critical part, the glasses themselves, rather than the rest of the iceberg.
Very Pessimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will want to use it and the Panopticon will be normalized.
> Very Pessimistic take: This will take off and then everyone will want to use it and the Panopticon will be normalized.
I cannot honestly discern how this is any different from the status-quo of surveillance enforced by Google and Apple for commercial and governmental applications.
> how this is any different from the status-quo
If it's normalized (or perhaps hypernormalized [0]) then being an "unscannable" [1] outlier may mean surprise and distrust from bespectacled passerby, and you can't even spend too long in a store before some nervous manager asks you to leave, and other sorts of markedly-worse things.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/adam-curtiss-...
[1] Idiocracy reference, albeit with barcode tattoos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81_NcN7yANM
If businesses ever restrict admission to users that don't own certain products, we are going to have a lot bigger problems on our hands than worrying about Meta fucking our privacy.
> If businesses ever restrict admission to users that don't own certain products
I think you misunderstand, they aren't escorting you from the premises for not owning/wearing Techno-Glasses, they're doing it because they think it's "incredibly suspicious" that your face doesn't yield a gobs of information from various online databases.
That said, businesses already restrict admission if you don't own certain products: Just try going in without any clothes.
I understood your question just fine, I'm not going up to bat for Meta here. My question is how any of this is different from the status-quo of CCTV surveillance, WiFi signal tracking for shopping heatmaps, collecting your cart history for personalized coupons, using your face to identify you and then aggregating additional data on your profile from commercial providers like Onavo or i2 Group.
Am I really supposed to believe that Kroger won't let me shop there because they can't collect enough info on me as-is? And that it would be a big enough problem for me to consider wearing their glasses as opposed to... exercising my freedom as an individual and driving to Rite-Aid? It's just nonsense. The world you're trying to portray is fictional. There are rational, common-sense reasons why people aren't afraid of that.
> businesses already restrict admission if you don't own certain products: Just try going in without any clothes.
Businesses don't enforce that, public decency laws do. If nudism was a protected class you can bet your bare asscheeks the average business wouldn't comment on your genitalia. Seemingly lost to you is the idea that supermarkets want people to spend money at their store, which is why their surveillance is noninvasive.
Your hypothetical is bad, but moreover the premise of your fear is just ill-founded. Western society has already accepted surveillance into it's mainstream lifestyle and not a single person has gained significant traction from denouncing it. It's actually kinda cute how uttering "facebook" makes people scream "Cambridge Analytica!" but then saying "FIVE-EYES" or "Cellebrite" gets you sideways looks and upset glances. My mistake, I assumed hackers used this site for whatever reason.
*sigh* I don't want to rephrase and retype just to be ignored again, so it's time for our old friend nested-quotes.
_________
> > > how this is any different from the status-quo
> > If it's normalized [...] being an "unscannable" outlier may mean surprise and distrust from bespectacled passerby, and you can't even spend too long in a store before some nervous manager asks you to leave [...]
> My question is how any of this is different from the status-quo
See the answer I gave above.
Both examples involve a potential change in social mores, which introduces punishment or ostracization from everyday passerby and strangers, against faces that somehow aren't linked to a new-creepy-normal of easily accessible information.
In contrast, the status-quo today is that you can walk around almost anywhere and the people you pass or interact with will neither know nor care about if your face matches a half-dozen social media accounts with your life story and your family tree and your deepest fears.
_________
> > I think you misunderstand [...] they're [escorting you out] because they think it's "incredibly suspicious" that your face doesn't yield a gobs of information from various online databases.
> Am I really supposed to believe that Kroger won't let me shop there because they can't collect enough info on me as-is?
No, you're "supposed to" notice where I explicitly said it was due to the staff being suspicious.
Implicitly, that means suspicion of criminal intent, much the same way that a store manager might get nervous from some other clothing and behavior choices.
_________
> > I think you misunderstand, they aren't escorting you from the premises for not owning/wearing Techno-Glasses
> I understood your question just fine [...] Am I really supposed to believe [...] it would be a big enough problem for me to consider wearing their glasses
Please understand the part where explicitly said your eyewear is irrelevant. The problem has nothing to do with whether you are using the wearable lookup-tools to look up other people.
__________
> My mistake, I assumed hackers used this site for whatever reason.
A veiled insult on my hacker-ness, huh? Well, I'm going to get some sleep, and I suggest you do the same.
On the flip side businesses could restrict Ray Ban Meta glasses wearers. Amusement parks have that rule that you can wear your glasses on their rides but not smart glasses that record video.
I was at Cedar Point this summer with my Ray Bans on and was told to take them off or I couldnt ride.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724310
I thought that was the primary use case. Meet someone, know something about them.
Used my Ray Ban (Metas) since last October almost daily. Im just using it to capture my life when needed without the need to have my phone. Also, asking the glasses for the time.
Half of those I talk to when wearing them have an issue with glasses with camera and the other half don't care with some being interested in getting their own.
Someone remarked that we're probably the last generation to live before cameras become so small you can't see them.