Father, Hacker (Information Security Professional), Open Source Software Developer, Inventor, and 3D printing enthusiast
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.
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.
Don’t go out in public? Seems like you’re asking the impossible because a recording of any kind is a “face scan”.
Ah, a true meme sommelier! As a shitpost epicurean we often don’t see eye to eye and this is one of those cases.
I find the smoothness to be an important feature for when I retire some day and work as a professional curator of low-effort-arts, as it will allow me to date the meme. It’s much easier than compression dating, which gives a rough estimate of reposts-over-time.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
The difference here is that your typical janitorial staff will look like janitorial staff. This guy is just a generic manager (a uniform change when cleaning would be a good idea though).
The other issue is that most businesses don’t have locker rooms; they’re just bathrooms.
A bathroom has stalls where you can’t see them whereas a locker room will often have naked or nearly naked people just walking about.
That’s way too short. Because if the point is to protect yourself from accusations, you need to be able to go back in time to whatever the company/courts would say is a reasonable amount of time (and match that policy).
I assume he doesn’t actually have access to the business cameras because he’s just an employee of a much larger organization.
Example: I work for a large organization and I do not have access to any cameras anywhere. I wouldn’t even know how to request it!
Also, the recordings need to last a lot longer than 48h. A month makes more sense.
I’d imagine that in that job—if you’re not a perfectly fit young dude or a woman—there’s a lot of accusations of “being a creep.”
Imagine you’re the guy working that job and someone complains that there’s a mess in the women’s locker room. What do you do?
You ask a woman if there’s anyone else in there, maybe shout that you’re coming in to clean it up, etc. Then you walk into the women’s locker room and someone—anyone—sees a man walking into the women’s locker room. BAM! Instant creep status.
Are Meta’s glasses the answer? Fuck no! But I understand the “I need protection from accusations” argument.
What’s the alternative? Cameras in the locker room? Hidden cameras?
The guy probably thought that the glasses were big, ugly, and obvious (because they are) so no one could complain that they didn’t know they could be recorded in that guy’s presence.
When I listen to someone’s playlist and it’s really different and kinda weird: Whoa, neat!
When I listen to someone’s playlist and it’s basically just a subgenre of easy listening: 🙄 “could this person get any more boring?”
When I listen to someone’s playlist and it’s all songs from when they were younger: “They’re trapped in the past. Could never handle immortality.” (Nods assuredly)
Actually, there’s a whole lot more swearing and pounding of the desk. Fists shaking in the air and screaming, “Anthropic!”
Woah! Nobody said anything about this being illegal! Not even the article.
Zero laws are broken in “distillation attacks” aka “see what their product does when we give it this prompt.”
Cesarian kids didn’t get this map.
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.