- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Does the EU not have freedom of the press or something?
Does the US?
Yes
Aww, how sweet!
What does this say
It says you’re an idiot.
Funny how the website which have the article about GDPR does not let you reject all cookies without paying.
So downvote and move on, that’s what I do. there are likely other news outlets with the same story who respect you more.
Agreed. Here we go: https://archive.vn/6eKHL
Yet another reason why local AI models are so important.
You don’t need to be sending people’s faces to a super sketchy dossier-building company like Meta when you can just do face/object recognition locally on the device.
This tech can be life-changing for people who are visually impaired. I would hate to see it banned just because the first adopter is an evil corporation.
How about not scanning my face at all?
Don’t go out in public? Seems like you’re asking the impossible because a recording of any kind is a “face scan”.
Very American-coded take. In Europe you have the right to your personal data anywhere.
We don’t do “no expectation of privacy in public spaces”
Informational Self-Determination, is the term to search for if you’d like to learn more
I understand that. The way I see it is that the European style gives the government a monopoly on recording in public. That seems dangerous to me (an American).
I personally think it’s very important that everyone have the right to record people in public because I’ve seen people—in person—being intimidated by police to stop recording (them possibly committing a crime).
It’s a “WTF!” hands in the air situation. The police know that everyone’s allowed to record them but they just don’t care.
How does that work in Europe? You see someone committing a crime and you just keep your phone in your pocket? Because it’s against the law?
“Excuse me, sir… May I have your permission to record you beating this person to death? Thanks!”
So don’t record me? I’m not recording anyone when I’m outside. Can’t you do the same?
When you’re out in public you’re in public! It’s literally the opposite of private.
Why would you expect to remain anonymous or private in such a situation?
Everyone has the right to record what’s going on, out in the open. You want to add shutter sounds and recording lights to cameras? Sure. That doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. But don’t go restricting people’s rights just because you think you’ll never have the need to record something happening right in front of you.
We already tested this with Google Glass and we called people like you glassholes. I can’t believe this has to be explained again.
There’s a reason you’re not allowed to own or operate fucking MIRVs.
because the second amendment to the US constitution is too weak?
if the “news” can do something everyone should be able to do it.
I don’t want people scraping face ID data for personal use any more than I want Meta hoovering up that shit.
This tech could have been life changing if Meta had focused on that purpose instead of engineering perv glasses. Fuck no.
there is no practical difference. as someone going their way on the street, you have no way to figure out what is happening with the recording the camera takes. you cannot determine if its processed locally, uploaded right to a data broker, or if it is stored locally temporarily for it to be uploaded later.
Yep. And?
Just like today: You have no idea if that person has a hidden camera or a gun or anything else dangerous or what their intentions are.
and that’s why local models don’t solve any problems with smart glasses. the only solution is to make wearing such hidden or not recording devices a criminal offence. to deter people from trying to do it. also make it know n to the people by making examples out of a few offenders, maybe staged.
Another solution would be to make centralized facial recognition systems illegal.
That way, you can still carry your phone around and not be charged with “concealed carry of a camera”.
yeah, then meta moves to process the video on your phone when it gets the chance, and upload the results to themselves.
That way, you can still carry your phone around and not be charged with “concealed carry of a camera”.
its strange because we usually don’t take it that way, but that is actually concealed carry of a camera
Your arguments are all against cameras recording people in public. That has nothing at all to do with AI. Local or not.
Local AI models do solve the privacy issue of everyone and everything being recorded, classified, and becoming permanently searchable for Meta and via any request they get from law enforcement, sketchy government entities, or anyone that’s willing to pay for it.
Your arguments are all against cameras recording people in public. That has nothing at all to do with AI. Local or not.
yes, and this whole post is about cameras recording people in public. not AI. you then said local AI is the solution. then I said it is not a solution.
Local AI models do solve the privacy issue of everyone and everything being recorded
they don’t, because again, nobody can tell if that person is using local AI, or if they are collecting data for uploading later.
It’s not only about sending data, it’s also the fact that they’re allowed to record without it being obvious. It needs to be unmistakable when it’s recording
phones are able to record without being obvious, so can gopros and security cameras. Should security cameras not be allowed to be hidden?
Phones - usually obvious but not obvious enough, so yes I am for making a big red undeniable record indicator. Cameras - they either show footage or take footage, so easier to understand. Security cameras - they usually put up a sign when you’re entering a recorded zone, yeah we should make it obvious.
Pre internet it was not interconnected, having it so easy to connect data gives too much power over people’s lives. That makes the problem worse, but giving you a choice to chopse what you do and say when recorded is crucial in my opinion
what about Tesla’s anti-Theft cameras or dashcams that are obvious but inside of moving vehicles?
Why does it need to be obvious?
In the US, everyone has the right to record what’s happening in public. Private settings are different, of course.
I know we’re talking about Europe here but I’m genuinely curious how it improves things to make it “obvious” other than annoying legitimate users and doing nothing at all to people who actually want to record people in secret.
Basically, it sounds like the pointless cookie warnings all over again.
Not everybody is fine with having their face be recorded and get put in a Meta ad or put on PornHub etc. If you know you’re being recorded, you can hold them liable
Again, you’re assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.
The only reason why there’s not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they’re actually selling.
Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.
Nope, I didn’t say that’s the only way the data will be handled. I did say that a big portion of it might be advertising and other privacy abuses in exchange for money. There’d be great value in smart glasses and at scale for helping near blind people around or people with dementia and the glasses reminding them, showing them stuff they already had forgotten like their payment details or children. But mostly there are gonna be assholes shooting videos of their dates or women in parks without them knowing, making deepfakes from them, jerking off, you get the idea. A blinking red light on smart glasses when recording would be a start at least
Because then you get a chance to control your image. It’s a reminder that you’re being recorded, assuming you’re always recorded isn’t practical. You’re also at that point have the right to express your annoyance, perverts for example will get shamed immediately and in public.
Forcing manufacturers too will help curb illegal recording in private places (offenders will have to work harder to hide the fact that they’re recording)
Always assume you’re being recorded in public because you are. You’re not even talking about that: You’re talking about preventing normal citizens from being able to record in public. Yet government will still have that power. That’s exactly what’s going on with Flock cameras.
You can regulate sales of hidden cameras in your country, but you can’t stop their manufacture or general availability because they’re literally designed to be undetectable. Anyone can buy them online and they always will be able to.
I could design my own PCB with a tiny CCD and put together a case with whatever lens I want. In your scenario, would I require a license to order such a PCB? Like it’s a gun or something?
How would you even know that it’s meant to be a camera for recording people? It could just be an environment monitoring sensor or a security device that sounds an alarm whenever it detects motion.
You brought up the practicality of things… What you propose is highly impractical.
I don’t think there’s a way to put the genie back in the bottle. You can probably buy some off Alibaba now.
Regulation can, what makes this so unique? You buy something from e.g. Alibaba and use it illegally - if you get caught you’re screwed. That’s enough to scare most people
Let me take a moment to state a universal truth: There’s no such thing as “too much regulation.” There’s just good regulation and bad regulation.
Want to regulate a category of technology that covers, “glasses with built-in cameras”? Ok! We’ll just mount the camera somewhere else.
Or perhaps you want to regulate cameras that have lenses too small to notice from say, a dozen paces? Well, that would ban cameras on smartphones.
Why not ban strapping smartphones to your head while you’re at it? That’s basically what these glasses are, after all.
Tell us: What, specific regulations would you be looking for?
Tell us: What, specific regulations would you be looking for?
I want people to have the ability to walk down the street without some fuckass with a camera, hidden or otherwise taking a live recording of them without thwir explicit consent, FOR ANY REASON.
Thats it.
It was bad enough when these people would walk around waving their phone cameras at everything while they were tourists or wanna be ‘influencers’, now these companies are making it harder to pick them out of the crowd (though those glasses are very distinctly ugly)
I can’t accept a world like this. No one has a right to privacy when out in public and especially not police who are on duty or government figures.
You’re just asking for a brutal police state with that attitude.
Note: Recording != Logging everything into a database. That’s an entirely separate issue.
IDK perverts are pretty determined in my experience
Not just perverts. Women have repeatedly caught police stalking them with hidden cameras. Journalists have caught police committing all sorts of crimes with hidden cameras.
Here in my home town, someone caught a local business trying to extort them with a hidden camera.
You’d think that with the possibility of hidden cameras being anywhere, evildoers would be a bit more careful. Nope!
Instead, they’re trying to be the ones controlling all the cameras and secret surveillance. If they’re the only ones that are legally allowed to secretly record people, then what you’ve got is a much more powerful police state.
Or we can just not have these or AI and survive just as we have. We dont need screens strapped to our faces, we use them too much as it is.
There’s already options for visually impaired and we do not need AI sunglasses.
What an asshole!
Might as well say what you mean: “We already have canes for blind people.”
Fuck you! If a simple, cheap technology can vastly improve their lives, why shouldn’t we allow that to be developed? It’s not hurting you or anyone else.
Meta is already using tech to hurt people. By your logic, we should ban the Internet because of that!
Fuck you too, you are supporting far worse damage than you think. And no, that is by your extrapolated logic, not mine.
These glasses are not designed for the visually impaired.
We could also go back to hunter-gatherer times and have a mortality rate in the thirties.
Technology and innovation arent inherently bad, especially if they have many potential uses. The problem arises when adding the human element of how its used.
On that front… right now I dont think a use case has been proven for wide use of a lot of recent technological innovations. They are investor (and/or pervert) bubbles that are liable to explode soon.
I cringe at the thought of blanket bans being seen as a solution instead of a temporary patch, as its really just trying to ban aspects of human culture without directly banning (or relearning) it. Which just means those awful aspects will just find another avenue and we end up playing whack-a-mole instead of actually trying to better the world.
I have issues with face recognition. While I’m not face blind, I have issues with remembering faces. This also cascades into remembering information about people.
A local face matching system, that can flag pertinent facts to me would be life-changing.
I refuse to let the likes of meta data mine me however. I also don’t want to be in the same boat as the people currently abusing the glasses already.
