It’s becoming somewhat of a running gag that any device or object will be made ‘smart’ these days, whether it’s a phone, TV, refrigerator, home thermostat, headphones or gla…
sure, but there the spying is the purpose, whereas with the glasses it’s incidental.
you don’t buy such gadgets if you don’t intend to spy, but people would buy meta glasses for other reason, and meta being able to spy on you is just a side-effect. Plus it’ a matter of scale, this has the potential of being much more prominent than some spy camera.
Meta spying is its own issue, and I think a very legitimate concern.
I’m understanding the concern the article mentions about smart glasses in general (independent of who manufactures them) being the user recording people. That’s what people seemed to be upset about when Google Glass launched as well.
I think the reason this is a problem with smart glasses but not with spy pens is that smart glasses are more accessible. I mean, you don’t just keep a spy pen on your person, or even buy one, in case it will be useful, right? but the smart glasses are just there, on your head. and why not take a few stealthy photos if I can just click and its one, nobody knowing? or even just that you take a photo of something, but there are others in the field of view who have no idea.
and not just with Meta. I don’t think other companies either can be trusted with tech like this. Certainly not in this age.
Yeah, they do. You never heard of a crime of opportunity?
Why do you lock your doors at night? You know that anyone who wants to get in can just rake the god damn lock, right? Most people don’t want to get into your house, and the ones who do will be able to enter anyway, so what pathology drives you to waste your time like this?
“Incidental”—this is Meta we’re talking about, and you can exchange them with any other technofacist and it still applies.
But I wholly agree with you that they know exactly what they are doing. This is how they get people to “participate” in their platforms and algorithms, whether they want to or not.
I don’t disagree. I meant for users it is incidental. Most users probably wouldn’t buy them with spying as the main purpose(they just also don’t really care that it can spy). making them much more widespread than something where spying was the main use-case, making the problem worse.
And as someone else mentioned, once you did get it, the temptation for using it for spying is there for a user. Making it worse than e.g. a spy pen imo, as with that you’d need the intent to spy first, and then buy it, but with this, you buy it for whatever reason and then think “oh, I could just spy now” since you already own the device, which I’d argue leads to more overall spying, so to speak. Maybe you see a video online and go “oh, I can just do that, right now, no effort on my part, since I already own this device”.
sure, but there the spying is the purpose, whereas with the glasses it’s incidental.
you don’t buy such gadgets if you don’t intend to spy, but people would buy meta glasses for other reason, and meta being able to spy on you is just a side-effect. Plus it’ a matter of scale, this has the potential of being much more prominent than some spy camera.
Meta spying is its own issue, and I think a very legitimate concern.
I’m understanding the concern the article mentions about smart glasses in general (independent of who manufactures them) being the user recording people. That’s what people seemed to be upset about when Google Glass launched as well.
I think the reason this is a problem with smart glasses but not with spy pens is that smart glasses are more accessible. I mean, you don’t just keep a spy pen on your person, or even buy one, in case it will be useful, right? but the smart glasses are just there, on your head. and why not take a few stealthy photos if I can just click and its one, nobody knowing? or even just that you take a photo of something, but there are others in the field of view who have no idea.
and not just with Meta. I don’t think other companies either can be trusted with tech like this. Certainly not in this age.
Whoever exhibits that mentality you describe hasn’t waiting for meta to be a creep.
Yeah, they do. You never heard of a crime of opportunity?
Why do you lock your doors at night? You know that anyone who wants to get in can just rake the god damn lock, right? Most people don’t want to get into your house, and the ones who do will be able to enter anyway, so what pathology drives you to waste your time like this?
“Incidental”—this is Meta we’re talking about, and you can exchange them with any other technofacist and it still applies.
But I wholly agree with you that they know exactly what they are doing. This is how they get people to “participate” in their platforms and algorithms, whether they want to or not.
I don’t disagree. I meant for users it is incidental. Most users probably wouldn’t buy them with spying as the main purpose(they just also don’t really care that it can spy). making them much more widespread than something where spying was the main use-case, making the problem worse.
And as someone else mentioned, once you did get it, the temptation for using it for spying is there for a user. Making it worse than e.g. a spy pen imo, as with that you’d need the intent to spy first, and then buy it, but with this, you buy it for whatever reason and then think “oh, I could just spy now” since you already own the device, which I’d argue leads to more overall spying, so to speak. Maybe you see a video online and go “oh, I can just do that, right now, no effort on my part, since I already own this device”.
And for Meta it’s like tracking cookies on crack