8 comments

  • mrweasel 15 minutes ago
    Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses, but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand?

    Influencers and stores are damaging their brands by selling or advertising the glasses, but Ray-Ban seems to go completely free.

    I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway.

    • Jcowell 5 minutes ago
      Penalty because it’s based on what people think when they see them. They don’t say Meta Raybands but just Meta glasses. If influential people were to start saying the former enough that it becomes then martins. Also is the question of do other Rayband glasses look like it. If this line is distinct enough than it won’t harm other lines since the visual association isn’t made.
  • alasr 20 minutes ago
    FB in meat-space: see, for reference, page# 11 of the Meta's patent - https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
  • lapkaaaa 29 minutes ago
    Portable Flock camera here we go
    • classified 7 minutes ago
      Government agencies love this stuff. Everything that's illegal for them to do (just in case they still care), Meta does it for them.
  • clickety_clack 23 minutes ago
    And people are paying meta for the privilege of putting these on their own faces?
    • classified 3 minutes ago
      You're buying supporter status in the National Surveillance Effort. Seats in patriot heaven don't come for free.
  • fouc 52 minutes ago
    in the future, everyone's glasses will have automatic recording of people.

    in the future, everyone's automatic recording of people will be fully accessible to all.

    in the future, everyone's glasses will also be AR glasses, enabling everyone to view everyone else's POV at any time.

    in the future there will be no privacy, because everyone will be able to watch everyone else.

    • KaiserPro 16 minutes ago
      Yes, but also no.

      A longer argument can be put here: https://www.secretbatcave.co.uk/software/we-need-to-talk-abo...

      Its perfectly possible that AR glasses could be _more_ privacy preserving than mobile phones. THe problem is, either the market needs to make it financially advantageous to be privacy preserving (yes I can hear the laughing from here) or the legal mechanism by which the end user can request damages from either the user of the glasses, or the maker ofthe glasses, or both.

    • Tepix 5 minutes ago
      Luckily, the future isn't set in stone. I see a ton of skepticism towards this surveillance tech.
    • classified 2 minutes ago
      But some are everyone-er than others.
    • tcp_handshaker 21 minutes ago
      >> in the future there will be no privacy, because everyone will be able to watch everyone else.

      "Mark Zuckerberg spends $30 million on four homes to ensure privacy" - https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/mark-zuckerberg-spends-...

    • cobertos 23 minutes ago
      Fully accessible to all? Not when there's money to be made by putting it behind a paywall. Unless it's served with ads I guess.
    • black6 40 minutes ago
      3GC
  • throwaway2027 31 minutes ago
    • classified 0 minutes ago
      That series was prescient.
  • tsukikage 35 minutes ago
    We should take a minute to understand that the current lawsuits are pushing, hard, for this. Whether or not Meta also want to do spying thing for their own purposes, we are forcing them to roll this shit out when we declare it's not enough for a user to tell a social media service their age, the social media site needs to be /certain/ and make a big database of their proof.

    The world that results may be exactly what we want, IDK. It's just be nice if we could decide, collectively, one way or the other, then be deliberate about it.

    • altcognito 33 minutes ago
      "Current lawsuits are pushing for universal recording because we require users to tell us their age" is a weird argument.
      • tsukikage 28 minutes ago
        Facebook already requires users to tell them their age, and already mandates minimum ages for users in their T&Cs. Recent and current lawsuits establish that /this is not enough/. Hence, mandatory age checks involving some combination of government ID and face recording, and a big database proving you've done that so you don't get fined when kids get on your platform.

        We're literally about to require Meta to prohibit the creation of multiple accounts. Their T&Cs already prohibit that, so what we're saying is that just asking is not enough - we are demanding it is enforced. What we ask for, we get.

        • edgyquant 10 minutes ago
          None of that is related to recording people without their consent
  • teunispeters 47 minutes ago
    and how is this distinct from a security camera with OpenCV? (I am curious. Mind, not a field I'm very interested in these days)
    • KaiserPro 21 minutes ago
      Technically quite a big difference.

      I'm not sure what part of meta delevoped that, I can't find those names in linkedin. I vaguely recognise one name but can't be sure about it.

      In meta, there are a number of research teams, SOme are pure hardware, although they are less now, some are software and some are about specific modes of interaction. Ie agios is about touch, opals are about displays (assuming they exist anymore) surreal is about visual understanding and graphics is well, graphics.

      Surreal built a "ego centric" platform, ie research perv glasses. They are quite capable https://www.projectaria.com/

      Recording data is easy, processing and making that data usable, within the power budget is hard.

      On the face of this, its trivially simple to do. Just record all that video and sound, do some STT facial recogntion and location extraction and jobs a goodun.

      Doing it with a total power envelope of <500mwhrs is the hard part.

      However, in terms or problems. These glasses have the ability to precisly locate the wearer. By inference it can locate anything it can see. If you have more than one wearer, you can locate lots of objects/people in real time.

      This means that you can trivially map people's movments,s thoughts and actions in more or less real time.

      Great for advertising, great for visually impaired, shit for everyone else.

    • buellerbueller 37 minutes ago
      Security cameras generally don't change their location.
    • lenerdenator 41 minutes ago
      The massive database it's connected to, the government's awareness of said database, and the government's intentions regarding the database.