Technology

Reminds me of Google glass or whatever it was called. It's not that people aren't ready, it's just a bad idea

Cities should be just as afraid of deploying Flock cameras.

"I saw all these comments about if you wear those glasses you're basically a predator or a creep, and I was like, 'Oh, maybe it's not a good idea to have those,'" said Kujawa. "I didn't really think that through all the way… there are a lot of times where it's not appropriate to wear cameras on your face."

Words to live by.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg remains convinced that smart glasses will eventually replace the smartphone.

Sure, Jan.

Good. Anyone caught wearing those in public should have them knocked the fuck off their faces...

There is an Android app that looks for the Bluetooth signatures of these glasses and alerts if they are nearby. Hopefully something exists on iOS devices as well.

Edit: The app is called Nearby Glasses and it is available on iOS and Android.

Ahhhh, glassholes.

"A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product."

That's men acting as they intended using a product as intended. There is no plot twist here.

Good.

Shame is a greatly underrated emotion.

Specifically identifying the “pervert glasses” as “pervert Meta Ray-bans” would kill these products even faster. Associating Ray-bans with perversion would surely be a deal breaker.

The real issue in my mind is privacy and autonomy. I want to be able to walk around without the expectation that I'm recorded. I'm male and don't have the same the impact from the creep-factor, and absolutely get it, but the implications are larger than dudes looking at women.

Big difference from a "I am in public and can be recorded" to a "I am in public and I should expect to be recorded". Another big step to "that recording is on a mega-corp server and can be viewed, reviewed, used as training data, cross-referenced, and otherwise processed without my consent because the person recording me consented; I really think this is the the crux, as I can have a tacit approval to be recorded by walking to a store, but I haven't given any approval for my likeness, my position, my emotions, etc to be recorded by walking down a street. A TV show using unsuspecting public will get people to sign waivers granting limited rights to their footage afterwards, or blur faces -- or did -- before retaining and publishing.

I walk into a grocery store and I can expect that they have a CCTV (note the CLOSED CIRCUIT part) system to be able to review what happened in the case of a robbery or whatever. The tech of my childhood meant that the store had a stack of VHS tapes, or maybe DVD/HD/SSD that rotated and could hold (lets way exaggerate) a decade of footage. A decade after I left the store, there was no record I was there -- maybe a receipt if I used a card, but I don't actually know the PCI retention requirements. With cheap storage and 3rd-party cloud-hosted camera systems, the business no longer owns the records of my presence, and has only a data retention 'agreement' with the provider. I didn't agree to my footage being used for any purpose other than the one implicit for safety/loss-prevention by visiting the store. Any use beyond that should be unreasonable search and seizure, but it's not being done by the government, so isn't illegal or something I could sue over.

Very similar situation to Flock/generic-ALPR-esq cameras. The trend used to be that unless you were somehow a person-of-note that you had effective anonymity in public: It took resources to monitor an individual's movements, facial expressions, actions, etc. It no longer does, and so all this is effectively captured and stored in perpetuity. The real problem is that it's everywhere. Good luck finding a grocery store that doesn't have some cloud-provider surveillance. Good luck finding a gas station that doesn't. Good luck even driving to a specific store that isn't recording you constantly because you pass several cameras on the way and some are specifically designed to track your movements.

Bringing it home to the current topic of 'smart' glasses. I haven't consented to being recorded by random person walking down the street with Meta's camera on their face. Meta has no ethical rights to my "content", regardless of whether the owner of the glasses has agreed to give Meta a license to their video as part of setting up the glasses. Ethical vs Legal, but we can keep pushing back.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this shit is pervasive and won't stop until we force it.

I just don't understand why they even tried. Google already proved in 2013 that people think you're an asshole for wearing things like this, even having the term "glasshole" come about.

Excellent news

"A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product."

Ruined? They're using it for it's designed purpose...

Good

I’m never buying Ray Bans again. I don’t want to be associated, fuck Ray Bans for taking that cash.

How do we feel about 'pedofocals'?

Being able to ruin a product presumes that it wasn't vile to begin with.

And they should be.

I have a bad feeling that apple is going to release a pair of smart glasses and all of the social momentum of discouraging wearing these things will be lost overnight.

This is the glasshole stigma all over again

Good. Good. Let your hate become your strength

OpenAI’s wearable hardware will be even better.

I dunno if it’s a pin or belt buckle or earpiece or what, but imagine such a thing with its camera always on, its microphone always recording and ready to talk back.

Even if they disable actual recording on the thing, I think it will become taboo too.

Creeps love an always-on camera that you can wear on your face so that it's not obvious that you're filming?

Who could've seen that coming

It's probably because the fucking glasses were used by the worst people at first. They were used by dudebros and weirdos who wish to do harm towards others. That's why people called them Perv glasses. Which isn't surprisng given Zuckerberg's whole M.O.

that's how a societly is supposed to work.