Skip to main content

in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Here's the original article: svd.se/a/K8nrV4/metas-ai-smart…
Unknown parent

in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

One could make a decent bit of $ on "I do not consent" knitted balaclavas on Etsy.
in reply to Willoughby

Dont they make glasses that blind cameras with infrared to obscure facial recognition? Im thinking a whole line of accessories (necklaces, earings, hats, etc) that fuck up these glasses ability to record you without consent. Not sure how technically feasible that all is but would love to see something like it to counteract these.
in reply to Numinous_Ylem

I think the problem with mass adoption of that kind of anti surveillance tech is that most people will not trade the convenience of being able to take pictures of themselves for the privacy of other people not being able to take pictures of them. Even if it's a toggle switch.
in reply to WhiteOakBayou

I think you're unfortunately right on that point. There's probably a higher chance of those types of devices being outlawed than Meta glasses and similar products being outlawed, knowing how our legal systems love to defer to corporations.

Theres also the whole deal with being able to legally film and photograph in a public space, which I support for sure, but this is very much not the same as that when a whole team of people overseas are reviewing everything along with AI analysing it, and with these glasses still operating in not-public spaces. Even the act of having to pull out a phone and physically hold it up to film is a small protection of privacy, because at least others can recognize that that person is filming. The passive always-recording nature of these glasses is truly frightening.

At least they are chunky and kinda stupid looking enough to be recognizable.... for now. It will be scary when there are dozens or hundreds of variations that look no different than any style of regular glasses.

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to WhiteOakBayou

Also wearing them identifies you as "a person wearing anti-spyware" glasses.

It's like not having a Facebook account, your shadow shows everyone you aren't, leaving the only person you could be.

in reply to Willoughby

And? I'm still very thankful to have completely deleted my account and tend to wear a mask in public. Its more about consent than hiding anything
in reply to Art3mis

In your defense, they aren't tracking your every move in pseudo-real time and tracking every app they can get their code into inside your phone.

but dude needs to buy a lawnmower and a tv used every now and then, so the bookmark stays. That shit isn't on my phone tho.

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to Willoughby

Yeah i keep a librewolf instance on my desktop open with tabs for shopping lol
in reply to Numinous_Ylem

I wonder what would be the power consumption of a device that sits on your head and emits IR light in all directions until you turn it off, instead of just over your eyes. Similar to how microphone blockers work.

What would jewelry and hats do about cameras?

in reply to IndigoGolem

The idea being that anything near the face emitting enough IR could potentially affect the meta glasses and obscure your face. I think IR LEDs draw less power than red LEDs but dont quote me Im not an engineer.

hackaday.com/2020/02/28/using-…

in reply to Numinous_Ylem

I think at least some are scams. I would think there are ways to design cameras to mostly mitigate this too. I'm guessing ALPRs have the ability to see license plates at night even though headlights are emitting a large amount of light over a broad spectrum (including IR).
in reply to Willoughby

If you're in public in the US, consent doesn't matter at all. We need to actively block surveillance, create our own privacy.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Frankly humanity does not need this invention one bit.

It may have legitmately sounded interesting and futuristic to some people a decade ago, but with the way tech companies are trending this type of tech will become an absolute surveillance and privacy nightmare. I mean it aleady is really, but it will get so so much worse.

Regulate and legislate these into oblivion. At the very least tech companies need to be punished financially for trying to speed run dystopia but I fear we're already sliding down that slope and it's too late

in reply to Numinous_Ylem

Frankly humanity does not need this invention one bit.


Yah. Unfortunately, we've got it though. :( :( :(

People I know, some friends, they are completely oblivious to how much it will surveillance them. Or how much Meta already does, in other ways. "I don't care, I'm not doing anything wrong".

Constant surveillance erodes a society. It erodes democracy.

in reply to FineCoatMummy

Half Life 2:

C1: This is how it always starts. First a building, then the whole block.

C2: They have no reason to come to our place.

C1: Don't worry, they'll find one.

in reply to FineCoatMummy

Get a webcam and place it prominently in their house, when askes tell them they have nothing to hide so youd like to watch. Bonus points for putting in the bedroom or bathroom.
in reply to Numinous_Ylem

Genies out of the bottle now man.

Look forward to an arms race and eventually a cold war. This is our generations nuke.

in reply to Numinous_Ylem

Would've been great tech if they didn't place fucking cameras into it
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

The absolute tone-deafness of not seeing that meta seeing the things is the disturbing part.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

I'm not surprised they are spying and I'm not surprised that the type of person to buy these things would be doing disturbing shit
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Now I'm chuckling at the thought that the view from these glasses is likely to be used for training AI, so you could have a bit of fun just aiming them at the most horrifying but legal porn you can find and plonk them down aimed at the screen while you go do other stuff.
Unknown parent

lemmy - Link to source
ghen
For real, The real question here is why does anyone at Meta have access to users data like that. This is rhetorical.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

God I wish they'd stop putting cameras in these and just make a nice pair of prescription glasses with good integrated headphones, a heads of display, and some basic touch controls on the stem.

I would genuinely enjoy this for easy listening and maps.

in reply to peanuts4life

Right? Make a product that a majority of people could find useful and not have any backlash at all...but then again, they've never been a product company. They've always been a personal information broker.
in reply to FoundFootFootage78

They need someone to review and tag the recorded footage to train AI models.

No moment is private when wearing these glasses. I'm glad they haven't caught on where I live.

in reply to FoundFootFootage78

being sent to offshore contractors for data labeling, a widely-used preprocessing step in training new AI models in which human contractors are asked to review and annotate footage.


From another article I read about this, seems like it involves a lot of drawing precise boxes around people and objects, stuff like that. Terminators gotta learn their sex moves from somewhere.

in reply to Alenalda

I actually did data labeling work on amazon mturk for a while, it does kind of suck, the main saving grace was I could largely do it on my own schedule but I assume these people don't really get that benefit.
in reply to chicken

In a certain nihilistic dreadful sense it's hilarious how these AI advancements are built on the backs of exploitative manual labor. On the surface the AI models are so utterly impressive at how "smart" and advanced the tech appears to be, but the truth of it is just slave labor building a catalog of labeled data sourced from mass surveillance. The aliens should really intervene soon, before we build something that can threaten them...
in reply to FoundFootFootage78

Read the article??

“You understand that it is someone’s private life you are looking at, but at the same time you are just expected to carry out the work,” the employee said. “You are not supposed to question it. If you start asking questions, you are gone.”
in reply to mathemachristian[he]

It was a rhetorical question, and directed at Facebook as a collective.
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Oh man! A friend just sent me this earlier today, I completely forgot to sign, but seeing this reminded me! Sharing the love.

https://c.org/BVqdM4SGS2

in reply to mrnobody

That petition is cute, but even if such a law was passed, it would be struck down.
in reply to doingthestuff

So? Even generating awareness about this nonsense is a +1 to society.

Cute comment tho.

This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to doingthestuff

There are other similar ones that have more awareness, but one was focused around New Orleans as there was an incident. I didn't hear about it. Another is taking about banning at beaches which also make sense so voyeurism isn't so creepy and make people feel awkward
in reply to mrnobody

FOUR signatures?! Wow, I have never seen so few signatures on a causeworthy well-written petition before 🫨
in reply to LemmyKnowsBest

Well, yeah, neither of us are on social media. I need to text a few circles of friends but 5 signatures means it'll get more promotion out there.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Orwell got it wrong with the wall mounted screens - 'they' want us to wear the screens. What was that album title? 'If you accept this,your kids are next.,
' Can't remember which band
in reply to knee

What was that album title? 'If you accept this,your kids are next., '


"If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next." By the Manic Street Preachers.

in reply to knee

If you tolerate this, your children will be next. Is a Manic Street Preachers song.
in reply to OrgunDonor

Thanks, almost got it right. A long while since I listened.
in reply to knee

Orwell also got it wrong not predicting people would not want to turn of their telescreens
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk

Absolutely. IIRC, the option of turning them off was only available to very high ranking members and even then only for relatively short periods of time.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

So you're telling me that the creepy motherfuckers who would wear something like this around in public do creepy things?

Never would have guessed that. 🤔

in reply to ChanchoManco

I'm pretty sure they monitor everything on all of their platforms, I don't know if they have to for legal reasons or just choose to.
in reply to rockandsock

Yeah, sorry I just read the article and found the answer, they tag the videos to train their AI.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

But this is not the problem but a symptom. Of you having no right to privacy (and if, it can be overwritten by some ToS).
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to MonkderVierte

Well you definitely don't have any right to privacy in public in the US.
in reply to doingthestuff

You have a reduced right to privacy in public but not eliminated all together.
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to pineapple

I remember when cool tech gadgets were cool and not undisguised spy tools.
in reply to ArmchairAce1944

It's almost absurd at this point, but i used to be really into gadgets and tech and shit. Now everything i see is like: that's a spy tool. That's showing ads. That is an ad. That is just a lie.
in reply to FatVegan

Same. At most I got 15 years left and I doubt I will ever see this changing in my lifetime.
in reply to pineapple

They wouldn't! Not a penis camera right? Thry wouldn't!
in reply to altphoto

Oh they would!
And then make it mandatory for everyone with a penis.
For child protection, you know.

Just noticed Child Protection.

in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Kathryn Bigelow's most under-rated film is almost upon us....just 30 years later than we thought.

Also...if you haven't seen that movie...go watch it. It's low-key one of her best.

in reply to Hemingways_Shotgun

I know this is off-topic, but Kathryn Bigelow is just an under-rated director in general I think. So many bangers. Also from a quick search I just found out she had a new movie out last year that stars Idris Elba, Rebecca Ferguson and Jared Harris? Somehow I missed that entirely.
in reply to Random Dent

Oh! In addition too Strange Days she directed the OG Point Break and The Hurt Locker! All great movies!
in reply to Hemingways_Shotgun

Great 90s cyberpunk movie. Way better than Johnny Mnemonic and Judge Dread.

Also starred the smokin' hot Angela Basset as a bonus.

in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

It really doesn't matter if facial recognition is enabled or not today, it can always be done later on. This is a huge invasion of privacy.
in reply to JoeMontayna

I don't think even George Orwell could have predicted that one day they'd put the cameras inside glasses, it would be common knowledge that they're in there and the they're spying on you and everyone you look at, and people would still voluntarily buy them with their own money and wear them around.
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Sorry,

Surveilling my Sand Cheeks Cock Vore hentai addiction will continue!

in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

Definitely not a Sony Walkman, which was cool and the foam headphones were comfortable to wear. I miss the simple analog days.
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
in reply to ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆

I don't know what's worse. Meta admitting to spy and nothing happens or the dumb people still buying their crap and using their services.