Shouldn't Google (Glass) get the credit for the idea?
The way Facebook gets singled out for "creepiness" in a world full of bad actors is pretty ridiculous, and actually makes it easier for the others to keep flying under the radar.
Google glass was widely hated for this with the term “glasshole” floating around the news at the time. But it was also never sold as a consumer product so most people never even saw one.
One of the div heads where I was working bought a (pair of?) Google Glass to figure out if there was anything useful we could do with them or develop for them.
He was trying them out and a colleague of mine wandered over to him and said something like, “ok Google, image search, pictures of dicks.”
Never has anyone whipped something off their face so fast. However, sadly, despite I believe it should have worked like a charm, for reasons that are now obscure to me no gallery of phalluses was displayed.
The only thing Google Glass was good for is checking e-mail. It would overheat and shutoff if you tried to record more than a few seconds of video or anything with real-time graphics.
Does it get singled out though? TikTok gets no end of flak. YouTube, as many parents will be aware, is full to the brim with creepy content. Kik has been widely reviled as a cesspool for CP sharing. And these are just a few examples.
Facebook gets a lot of (deserved) flak, but it’s hardly singled out.
And yet, nobody feels that so viscerally that they feel compelled to write these schoolyard-level insults directed at its leadership every time it comes up in a HN thread.
I remember that quite well. However, the backlash was very specific; as far as I remember it was never directed at the company as a whole, let alone the person of, say, Eric Schmidt.
Eric Schmidt didn’t present as a creepy weirdo.
He also didn’t make the company a reflection of himself. That kept the glasshole backlash compartmentalized.
Strange things happen when a leader merges the company brand and with his personal brand. It can strengthen the company brand (in the case of a plucky can-do technologist) but the company brand starts to get colored by the personality of the person (in the case of a person who goes off the deep end and starts saying weird and inflammatory stuff).
The early internet was created and inhabited by nerds, which praticed playful creativity on interdependent networks and open protocols. Cooperation and collaboration was at the core.
Then the creeps arrived, drunk on sudden power and the promise of quick cash, and started capturing and consolidating online activity into 'platforms', or walled gardens if you will. These where void of the creative expression of the free and open web and streamlined every interaction into a very narrow and neatly defined world.
These creeps started abusing their power early on to snoop on peoples activity, pictures and conversations — which would be viewed as totally unacceptable behavior in the offline world — and went on to build the worlds most sinister and cynical manipulation machine.
Creeps are antithetical to the spirit of the early internet and the open web and they are actively working agains the ethos of open protocols and playful creativity!
The creeps arrived long before SV, startup culture, walled gardens and "quick cash." Internet (at least web) culture was born in the cesspools of SA and 4chan, rotten.com and the like.
I appreciate the effort to reform "nerds" into quirky elfin innocents but even USENET was full of creeps.
You are right, but I had the creeps that sought power in mind. Internet was for sure inhabited by countless other kinds of creeps of various flavours, but none of them had such a negative impact on human civilization as a whole as the power hungry creeps. They effectively captured and curtailed the promises of the early, distributed web.
Maybe it was destined to develop the way it did, given the permissionless nature of the web, and that the ideal of an open and distributed web would be choked out at some point anyway, as a natural consequence of collective human behaviour.
And maybe, if the web could have had a few more years without the power hungry forces we now know, we would have developed a stronger immunity against such behaviour? We will never know, I guess.
Non the less, I'll forever hold a deep grudge towards the power hungry creeps for the catastrophic effects they unleashed on the world and for ruining the potential of a truly open, diverse and vibrant web. In a generation or two, I do think we will look back at the founders of Big Tech companies as creeps that harmed the world in unthinkable ways, just as we do with brutal powerful people in earlier history.
They shaped the world in countless ways, and the negatives are just now beginning to gain space in the collective consciousness.
Not just Usenet, although it's the most well remembered example. Anywhere people could congregate on the early internet had its share of dark alleys where people would trade porn, warez, and political diatribe. IRC especially but also on the web if you accidentally strayed too far off the beaten path.
The modern Internet is basically less like a city and more like a shopping mall now.
Since it takes a whole lot of effort to defend oneself against an accusation I think people should spend at least a little bit of effort when making one.
If you can't explain why you are invoking No true Scotsman and how it applies, then I don't think you should be accusing the parent of it.
That's fair, it just jumped out so strongly to me that I didn't think to explain.
The implicit "no true scotsman" statement was "The people who 'took over and perverted' all these technologies were the creeps, None of the people who were there before this 'takeover' were considered creeps by anyone no sir, all upstanding Scotsmen each and every one of them. (And if there was a creep, he was obviously part of the 'takeover')."
I can see you might read it that way, but, to clarify, I am arguing that it was not'"the best thing that ever happened to the so called "creeps"' at that point, rather than "there were no creeps". TO put it another way its postive impact was greater relative to the negative.
Something I was pondering the other day, is that similarly to how dashcams are becoming a more everyday addition to cars for self-protection, so in time the personal equivalent of a dashcam might be necessary for in-person interactions. (Basically, the personal equivalent of the bodycams that police are meant to use.)
Such smart glasses may actually lead us there: just record everything I do and say in a week, and I'll tell you it's safe to delete it if I've not had any concerning interactions in that time period.
I don't like that society might be heading this way, but I'd not bet money against it.
I seem to remember Gates talked about how we would soon have cheap enough storage that a person could record every conversation they ever have for this reason. This was in his '95 book 'The Road Ahead' or maybe I'm remembering it wrong
The privacy implications are only one of the off-putting elements of the new norm of constant filming. There's something vapid and self-absorbed about everything being filmed and shared. Existing in the moment isn't enough anymore. For many, each moment needs to be preempted for a contrived video or pic.
I can appreciate the potential utility of a HUD in daily scenarios. For myself, I'm content to go sans device when I'm out of the house. Don't I get enough here at my desk? Not everything needs to be computed, optimized or shared.
Yeah, and the nature of consciousness is such that you fundamentally cannot gain anything from consciously recording more of your life for future viewing/nostalgia/reminiscence without robbing your future self of more immediate experience of the moment.
This report also mentions the news/rumors of Apple moving away from more Vision Pro to smart glasses.
> That pivot to smart glasses is also apparently dragging Apple in its wake, with reports that the company is deprioritizing an affordable Vision Pro to focus on its own pair (or pairs plural, actually) of specs.
When I saw this news/rumor a few days ago, I didn’t understand why Apple would rush into this now (with the creepiness of Samsung, Google, and now Meta, all being recognized). Apple sometimes has a different take on how things work, but I can’t think of how it could make non-creepy smart glasses unless it doesn’t put a camera that records and stores things for the user.
I hope this product category flops for all makers.
I have a personal theory that this technology is inevitable, and will become widely used. As the technology gets better, and these cameras get more discrete, anyone not wearing these glasses is at a disadvantage.
I would love to record everything I see (assuming perfect solutions around video security and storage, another topic), not because I’m a creep and want to watch the videos, but because it acts as a personal dash cam.
Right? Actually having access to what you saw and heard beyond your memories sounds like a great thing.
But I would prefer not to get it via Google or Facebook.
Even the humble recorder app that came with my phone, which I used to record interviews for genealogy - turns out, I am locked out from my own audio file. It's saved on the device, but I need root to access it. If I get that, my bank punishes me for my irresponsibility by disabling the apps I need to e.g. log in to government websites. I can only get my audio file if I upload it to Google first.
So that another topic is quite relevant.
I'm not so sure it will be inevitable and widely used. I'm sure it will be used by our secret police. I also think they prefer we didn't get it, or at least that our use of it was heavily mediated by a government-partnered organization like Facebook or Google.
Walk around in Lycra and clompy shoes, wearing a cycle helmet and helmet cam and people will assume you’re a YouTuber. You don’t even need a bike.
Incidentally if y’all aren’t following this space there are bike rear lights which have cameras and radars in them and they hook up to a cycle computer, warn of cars coming up behind and how far away they are, and can be used as a ‘dash’ cam for near misses / bad driving / accidents.
perma-video + llms to scrape through it ("where did i leave my keys?" - "you absent-mindedly left them in the kitchen") plus a million other use cases we haven't even thought of will be way too useful to give up.
"wow you send Every Single Frame of your life to zuck?" - i will have no retort than to hang my head in shame.
i just wonder what google will come up with. they can't let zuck have the entire cake, especially when they had The Vision 10 years ahead of him.
Interesting idea of offloading yet another mind function to technology... We already take pictures of scenery instead of absorbing it with our eyes and mind (what about concert-goers who press record and get busy watching the video to make sure the framing is right, instead of actually enjoying the concert).
Even critical thinking is now being offloaded to ChatGPT.
A friend of mine loads up a YouTube video of how to tie a necktie every morning...
not really a convincing comparison... if i no longer had to poo, that would be pretty cool. yeah its a bodily function but it also kind of sucks and is disgusting and requires a ton of infrastructure to "take care of".
being able to seek-scroll throughout your day like a non-stop livestream is objectively a power-up. some people will get oneshotted by it - but a lot of people have been oneshotted by a lot of different things over the decades.
short-form video fried lots of brains, but it also built out the infra for all the other stuff. it is what it is.
So who has tried smart glasses? I've got a weird use case. Maybe not so weird for HN, but probably not the target audience.
I have all my stuff in a terminal window, with tabs for each server I'm connected to. I have tmux on each of them, with neovim, lazygit, and a bash shell. How would I use this with smart glasses? The idea is mainly to give me a bit of a change of scenery during the day. I'm not quite fathoming how I would input anything while walking around with smart glasses.
That's more AR, there's the Apple Vision that has an in-the-air keyboard, but you'd look kinda strange. Others have used chorded keyboards, which is a bit more discrete. I personally wouldn't for work purposes though. Are you thinking sitting somewhere to work, or working while walking? I couldn't do the latter.
>I'm not quite fathoming how I would input anything while walking around with smart glasses.
That's what Meta is using/developing the electromyographic wristband for, and a major usecase for Neuralink-type tech as well, but for now there just doesn't seem to be a real useable solution.
So I take it the LED that lights up during recording is also light-sensitive, and will stop the recording if covered (for instance) with a drop of matching enamel paint..?
Sorry, could not gather meaning from context. You mean the videos teach how to deactivate the LED because the light is normally sensitive to being blocked...?
I think grandparent comment means how to deactivate the recording indicator light: it seems it will not turn on if the camera starts recording and sees only black. Maybe to prevent light pollution for dark scenes/accidental recording? So the hack is to cover the camera, start recording, wait a few seconds, and then record normally, the indicator light will remain off (I write from memory, it could be more convoluted than this).
Or maybe the workaround is there like the simple workarounds on DVD players to bypass region-check: because the manufacturer knows info about it will spread and help sell the product.
How does this work in two-party consent states. IANAL but as I understand it, you need to permission to record someone in California.
As an aside, I don't consider myself a particularly paranoid person (relative to the median HN commenter, I'm probably still in the 95th percentile of paranoid-ness in the general population), but I couldn't imagine ever wearing a device that records my entire life and uploads it to Meta of all companies....
That code (penal code 632) has a carve out for when there is a “reasonable expectation” of the location being in public so outside of private spaces it doesn’t apply.
The internet is littered with a*holes with cameras testing that carve out and members of the public who don’t know who get into fights. Best to not be interesting in public unless you’re okay with being filmed I guess.
In this respect, Sora and similar systems are going to provide pushback, since it's now becoming viscerally obvious to everyone that seeing video of something doesn't mean that it happened. Just yesterday, a tiktok link of a cat knocking over someone's coffee was being shared in a group chat I'm in, before one of the (nontechnical!) members said, "Wait. This is SORA?"
(There's also the point that human eyes, a brain, and a neuralink product or competitor will constitute a recording device soon, but I've argued that in these kinds of threads before).
The article failed to mention that there are already laws in many states protecting people from being recorded without their knowledge. Look up two party consent states. The guy recording inappropriate dating questions could be sued and lose everything at Sam Francisco University.
I have come to terms with the fact that these cameras and processors will get smaller, and smaller, until one day you won't know if the glasses worn by the person in front of you have a camera or not. It's inevitable. Like deamon operative glasses, people will wear them, will abuse them, and there's not a lot we can do about it. It's like any other camera, staring at us when we go in public of which there are many, many, many.
massive cope. they said the same thing about airpods. the reality is that everyone already has a camera and mic pointing at them at any given point - fretting over it makes you look like the archetypical privacy-obsessed nerd (and not in a good way)
"The tech bros fundamentally mis-understand human socialization and interaction"
the "tech bros" have DEFINED modern-day human socialization and interaction. they've been defining it for 20 years now, and they will continue to re-define it in their image.
The fastest I’ve seen the US Congress move lately was in relation to revenge porn. Lightning speed when something from a dim corner of the Internet can affect the real lives of their relatives.
Creating a product for creeps is so on brand for a company founded by a creep.
Shouldn't Google (Glass) get the credit for the idea?
The way Facebook gets singled out for "creepiness" in a world full of bad actors is pretty ridiculous, and actually makes it easier for the others to keep flying under the radar.
Google glass was widely hated for this with the term “glasshole” floating around the news at the time. But it was also never sold as a consumer product so most people never even saw one.
You’ve just reminded me of something.
One of the div heads where I was working bought a (pair of?) Google Glass to figure out if there was anything useful we could do with them or develop for them.
He was trying them out and a colleague of mine wandered over to him and said something like, “ok Google, image search, pictures of dicks.”
Never has anyone whipped something off their face so fast. However, sadly, despite I believe it should have worked like a charm, for reasons that are now obscure to me no gallery of phalluses was displayed.
The only thing Google Glass was good for is checking e-mail. It would overheat and shutoff if you tried to record more than a few seconds of video or anything with real-time graphics.
Does it get singled out though? TikTok gets no end of flak. YouTube, as many parents will be aware, is full to the brim with creepy content. Kik has been widely reviled as a cesspool for CP sharing. And these are just a few examples.
Facebook gets a lot of (deserved) flak, but it’s hardly singled out.
Alongside Google Glass around the same time (in 2013) was Samsung’s creepy watch with a camera and a creepy ad for that. [1]
[1]: https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/23/samsung-smartwatch-date...
Google is also creepy.
And yet, nobody feels that so viscerally that they feel compelled to write these schoolyard-level insults directed at its leadership every time it comes up in a HN thread.
There was a ton of backlash when Glass launched. Search for "glassholes" to find articles on that topic from back then.
I remember that quite well. However, the backlash was very specific; as far as I remember it was never directed at the company as a whole, let alone the person of, say, Eric Schmidt.
Because Meta was and is whatever Zuckerberg wants it to be, due to his control of the majority of voting shares. It’s a direct reflection of his soul
Eric Schmidt didn’t present as a creepy weirdo. He also didn’t make the company a reflection of himself. That kept the glasshole backlash compartmentalized.
Strange things happen when a leader merges the company brand and with his personal brand. It can strengthen the company brand (in the case of a plucky can-do technologist) but the company brand starts to get colored by the personality of the person (in the case of a person who goes off the deep end and starts saying weird and inflammatory stuff).
To be fair, I feel compelled to do just that.
Probably the "dumb fucks" comment.
It's only a matter of time before someone gets "OK Glass(ed)" after saying "Hey Meta" out loud in a crowd.
[dead]
[dead]
The Internet was the best thing that ever happened to the so called "creeps", should we get rid of it as well?
The early internet was created and inhabited by nerds, which praticed playful creativity on interdependent networks and open protocols. Cooperation and collaboration was at the core.
Then the creeps arrived, drunk on sudden power and the promise of quick cash, and started capturing and consolidating online activity into 'platforms', or walled gardens if you will. These where void of the creative expression of the free and open web and streamlined every interaction into a very narrow and neatly defined world.
These creeps started abusing their power early on to snoop on peoples activity, pictures and conversations — which would be viewed as totally unacceptable behavior in the offline world — and went on to build the worlds most sinister and cynical manipulation machine.
Creeps are antithetical to the spirit of the early internet and the open web and they are actively working agains the ethos of open protocols and playful creativity!
I would love to see this In a Nutshell episode
100%
Source: I'm old and was there.
The creeps arrived long before SV, startup culture, walled gardens and "quick cash." Internet (at least web) culture was born in the cesspools of SA and 4chan, rotten.com and the like.
I appreciate the effort to reform "nerds" into quirky elfin innocents but even USENET was full of creeps.
You are right, but I had the creeps that sought power in mind. Internet was for sure inhabited by countless other kinds of creeps of various flavours, but none of them had such a negative impact on human civilization as a whole as the power hungry creeps. They effectively captured and curtailed the promises of the early, distributed web.
Maybe it was destined to develop the way it did, given the permissionless nature of the web, and that the ideal of an open and distributed web would be choked out at some point anyway, as a natural consequence of collective human behaviour.
And maybe, if the web could have had a few more years without the power hungry forces we now know, we would have developed a stronger immunity against such behaviour? We will never know, I guess.
Non the less, I'll forever hold a deep grudge towards the power hungry creeps for the catastrophic effects they unleashed on the world and for ruining the potential of a truly open, diverse and vibrant web. In a generation or two, I do think we will look back at the founders of Big Tech companies as creeps that harmed the world in unthinkable ways, just as we do with brutal powerful people in earlier history.
They shaped the world in countless ways, and the negatives are just now beginning to gain space in the collective consciousness.
Not just Usenet, although it's the most well remembered example. Anywhere people could congregate on the early internet had its share of dark alleys where people would trade porn, warez, and political diatribe. IRC especially but also on the web if you accidentally strayed too far off the beaten path.
The modern Internet is basically less like a city and more like a shopping mall now.
Yes please
Yes.
Maybe?
Whattabouttttt
Really? Email, IRC, old fashioned informational websites, usenet, FTP, ssh etc. are for creeps?
It was taken over and perverted by creeps.
"No true scotsman"[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Where is the Scotsman in “really, email is for creeps?”
Since it takes a whole lot of effort to defend oneself against an accusation I think people should spend at least a little bit of effort when making one.
If you can't explain why you are invoking No true Scotsman and how it applies, then I don't think you should be accusing the parent of it.
That's fair, it just jumped out so strongly to me that I didn't think to explain.
The implicit "no true scotsman" statement was "The people who 'took over and perverted' all these technologies were the creeps, None of the people who were there before this 'takeover' were considered creeps by anyone no sir, all upstanding Scotsmen each and every one of them. (And if there was a creep, he was obviously part of the 'takeover')."
I can see you might read it that way, but, to clarify, I am arguing that it was not'"the best thing that ever happened to the so called "creeps"' at that point, rather than "there were no creeps". TO put it another way its postive impact was greater relative to the negative.
Something I was pondering the other day, is that similarly to how dashcams are becoming a more everyday addition to cars for self-protection, so in time the personal equivalent of a dashcam might be necessary for in-person interactions. (Basically, the personal equivalent of the bodycams that police are meant to use.)
Such smart glasses may actually lead us there: just record everything I do and say in a week, and I'll tell you it's safe to delete it if I've not had any concerning interactions in that time period.
I don't like that society might be heading this way, but I'd not bet money against it.
I seem to remember Gates talked about how we would soon have cheap enough storage that a person could record every conversation they ever have for this reason. This was in his '95 book 'The Road Ahead' or maybe I'm remembering it wrong
The privacy implications are only one of the off-putting elements of the new norm of constant filming. There's something vapid and self-absorbed about everything being filmed and shared. Existing in the moment isn't enough anymore. For many, each moment needs to be preempted for a contrived video or pic.
I can appreciate the potential utility of a HUD in daily scenarios. For myself, I'm content to go sans device when I'm out of the house. Don't I get enough here at my desk? Not everything needs to be computed, optimized or shared.
Right, I can't imagine in 2025 wanting to be more online instead of less.
I know that giving up a habit is very hard, but I don't know why people would go out of their way to make it worse.
Yeah, and the nature of consciousness is such that you fundamentally cannot gain anything from consciously recording more of your life for future viewing/nostalgia/reminiscence without robbing your future self of more immediate experience of the moment.
This report also mentions the news/rumors of Apple moving away from more Vision Pro to smart glasses.
> That pivot to smart glasses is also apparently dragging Apple in its wake, with reports that the company is deprioritizing an affordable Vision Pro to focus on its own pair (or pairs plural, actually) of specs.
When I saw this news/rumor a few days ago, I didn’t understand why Apple would rush into this now (with the creepiness of Samsung, Google, and now Meta, all being recognized). Apple sometimes has a different take on how things work, but I can’t think of how it could make non-creepy smart glasses unless it doesn’t put a camera that records and stores things for the user.
I hope this product category flops for all makers.
I have a personal theory that this technology is inevitable, and will become widely used. As the technology gets better, and these cameras get more discrete, anyone not wearing these glasses is at a disadvantage.
I would love to record everything I see (assuming perfect solutions around video security and storage, another topic), not because I’m a creep and want to watch the videos, but because it acts as a personal dash cam.
Right? Actually having access to what you saw and heard beyond your memories sounds like a great thing.
But I would prefer not to get it via Google or Facebook.
Even the humble recorder app that came with my phone, which I used to record interviews for genealogy - turns out, I am locked out from my own audio file. It's saved on the device, but I need root to access it. If I get that, my bank punishes me for my irresponsibility by disabling the apps I need to e.g. log in to government websites. I can only get my audio file if I upload it to Google first.
So that another topic is quite relevant.
I'm not so sure it will be inevitable and widely used. I'm sure it will be used by our secret police. I also think they prefer we didn't get it, or at least that our use of it was heavily mediated by a government-partnered organization like Facebook or Google.
Walk around in Lycra and clompy shoes, wearing a cycle helmet and helmet cam and people will assume you’re a YouTuber. You don’t even need a bike.
Incidentally if y’all aren’t following this space there are bike rear lights which have cameras and radars in them and they hook up to a cycle computer, warn of cars coming up behind and how far away they are, and can be used as a ‘dash’ cam for near misses / bad driving / accidents.
perma-video + llms to scrape through it ("where did i leave my keys?" - "you absent-mindedly left them in the kitchen") plus a million other use cases we haven't even thought of will be way too useful to give up.
"wow you send Every Single Frame of your life to zuck?" - i will have no retort than to hang my head in shame.
i just wonder what google will come up with. they can't let zuck have the entire cake, especially when they had The Vision 10 years ahead of him.
Interesting idea of offloading yet another mind function to technology... We already take pictures of scenery instead of absorbing it with our eyes and mind (what about concert-goers who press record and get busy watching the video to make sure the framing is right, instead of actually enjoying the concert).
Even critical thinking is now being offloaded to ChatGPT.
A friend of mine loads up a YouTube video of how to tie a necktie every morning...
not really a convincing comparison... if i no longer had to poo, that would be pretty cool. yeah its a bodily function but it also kind of sucks and is disgusting and requires a ton of infrastructure to "take care of".
being able to seek-scroll throughout your day like a non-stop livestream is objectively a power-up. some people will get oneshotted by it - but a lot of people have been oneshotted by a lot of different things over the decades.
short-form video fried lots of brains, but it also built out the infra for all the other stuff. it is what it is.
So who has tried smart glasses? I've got a weird use case. Maybe not so weird for HN, but probably not the target audience.
I have all my stuff in a terminal window, with tabs for each server I'm connected to. I have tmux on each of them, with neovim, lazygit, and a bash shell. How would I use this with smart glasses? The idea is mainly to give me a bit of a change of scenery during the day. I'm not quite fathoming how I would input anything while walking around with smart glasses.
That's more AR, there's the Apple Vision that has an in-the-air keyboard, but you'd look kinda strange. Others have used chorded keyboards, which is a bit more discrete. I personally wouldn't for work purposes though. Are you thinking sitting somewhere to work, or working while walking? I couldn't do the latter.
>I'm not quite fathoming how I would input anything while walking around with smart glasses.
That's what Meta is using/developing the electromyographic wristband for, and a major usecase for Neuralink-type tech as well, but for now there just doesn't seem to be a real useable solution.
So I take it the LED that lights up during recording is also light-sensitive, and will stop the recording if covered (for instance) with a drop of matching enamel paint..?
Yes, there are already videos floating around on how to do it.
Sorry, could not gather meaning from context. You mean the videos teach how to deactivate the LED because the light is normally sensitive to being blocked...?
I think grandparent comment means how to deactivate the recording indicator light: it seems it will not turn on if the camera starts recording and sees only black. Maybe to prevent light pollution for dark scenes/accidental recording? So the hack is to cover the camera, start recording, wait a few seconds, and then record normally, the indicator light will remain off (I write from memory, it could be more convoluted than this).
Or maybe the workaround is there like the simple workarounds on DVD players to bypass region-check: because the manufacturer knows info about it will spread and help sell the product.
How does this work in two-party consent states. IANAL but as I understand it, you need to permission to record someone in California.
As an aside, I don't consider myself a particularly paranoid person (relative to the median HN commenter, I'm probably still in the 95th percentile of paranoid-ness in the general population), but I couldn't imagine ever wearing a device that records my entire life and uploads it to Meta of all companies....
That code (penal code 632) has a carve out for when there is a “reasonable expectation” of the location being in public so outside of private spaces it doesn’t apply.
The internet is littered with a*holes with cameras testing that carve out and members of the public who don’t know who get into fights. Best to not be interesting in public unless you’re okay with being filmed I guess.
I think it is reasonable to expect that a recording device is obvious to the person being recorded.
Reasonable maybe, but not required by the current laws and precedent that allow for recording in public.
I 'member Surveillance Camera Man[1]
[1]https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/
In a workplace, signs proclaiming “recording devices are in use” relate to implied consent. I think maybe things are different in workplace bathrooms?
In this respect, Sora and similar systems are going to provide pushback, since it's now becoming viscerally obvious to everyone that seeing video of something doesn't mean that it happened. Just yesterday, a tiktok link of a cat knocking over someone's coffee was being shared in a group chat I'm in, before one of the (nontechnical!) members said, "Wait. This is SORA?"
(There's also the point that human eyes, a brain, and a neuralink product or competitor will constitute a recording device soon, but I've argued that in these kinds of threads before).
The article failed to mention that there are already laws in many states protecting people from being recorded without their knowledge. Look up two party consent states. The guy recording inappropriate dating questions could be sued and lose everything at Sam Francisco University.
I have come to terms with the fact that these cameras and processors will get smaller, and smaller, until one day you won't know if the glasses worn by the person in front of you have a camera or not. It's inevitable. Like deamon operative glasses, people will wear them, will abuse them, and there's not a lot we can do about it. It's like any other camera, staring at us when we go in public of which there are many, many, many.
massive cope. they said the same thing about airpods. the reality is that everyone already has a camera and mic pointing at them at any given point - fretting over it makes you look like the archetypical privacy-obsessed nerd (and not in a good way)
i love the top comment:
"The tech bros fundamentally mis-understand human socialization and interaction"
the "tech bros" have DEFINED modern-day human socialization and interaction. they've been defining it for 20 years now, and they will continue to re-define it in their image.
Total Techbro Victory.
blacklash is coming...LOL don't hold your breath
The fastest I’ve seen the US Congress move lately was in relation to revenge porn. Lightning speed when something from a dim corner of the Internet can affect the real lives of their relatives.
Fair point indeed