▲ 223 points
back
82 comments
[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130
"using the bathroom" will be the least of what they're watching people do. Anyone wearing these glasses (or similar) should know that all of the audio/video picked up by the glasses will be watched and analyzed by others, likely by AI as well. Just like the entire point of facebook is to spy on people and profit from that data, the entire point of these devices is to spy on people in ways that the facebook app doesn't/can't and profit from that data.
Sadly, "using the bathroom" will cause a more immediate visceral reaction for most people than "maliciously manipulating your entire life via ad networks and media".
My first thought was of people who may have been wearing them while entering passwords or viewing sensitive information.
Do we really care what it is that will cause the visceral reaction? If I said it might reveal ways/means or private IP or any of a million other examples, few would really care as not everyone is involved in that. However, everyone goes to the bathroom.
Great if I wear sunglasses at the public pool people think I'm a nonce filming kids.
>nonce
today i learned this word has a definition outside of cryptography. it appears to be UK slang for pedophile.
Sunglasses, no.
Meta RayBans, deservedly.
And now realise the same is true for your robot vacuum, car camera, doorbell camera, etc etc
We consumers have no protection against big tech
Speak for yourself, I rooted my vacuum the day I bought it
Sure you do. All of those are available in local versions without Internet.
Youjust need to care enough, be able to afford them (while my vacuum has no camera, it requires the cloud, but it was significantly cheaper than a local or hackable one), and have the ability to self host something like home assistant.
>We consumers have no protection against big tech
Stop buying it. You are not a robot that is forced to purchase a video doorbell or a robotic vacuum cleaner or a smart thermostat.
You have free will. If you do not like a commercially available product, don't buy it, don't use it. It's that simple.
We definitely don’t have any hard boundaries baked into this tech preventing big tech from (ab)using our data this way. But are there specific companies you think are doing this? I think with Meta products, it’s been rather obvious for a long time. But I’ve had a Nest doorbell camera and thermostats for years, and first iRobot and now Roborock vacuums, and they don’t really seem so suspect.
> We consumers have no protection against big tech
I like to call big tech, “Little Sister” since governments are “Big Brother”
At least the vacuum does not try to start a civil war for add impressions..
Obligatory Valetudo reference. Replace the robovac firmware so it doesn't do cloud.
Can't help with the rest unfortunately.
Don't buy the shit. You don't need a smart doorbell or robot vacuum at a minimum.
Don't use it.
How many times will the same report be regurgitated and reposted? There is nothing added here that the original source didn't cover already (https://www.svd.se/a/K8nrV4/metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-...). Read that instead of the derivative blogspam.
Can that original source be reposted on HN within a short timespan or will it be deleted/comments moved? How then would this report gain more traction if only allowed once?
I honestly prefer the ars article here just because there's no onscroll fancy animation, just an actual textual description of what's being reported.
When people are done being disgusted by it.
It would probably help if Meta admitted it did wrong and wasn't fighting it in court.
Yea, but not a bad reminder to ridicule people who wear them, and if possible destroy on site.
Facebook at it again - creating the worst possible image in society of a potentially useful technology by their carelessness and greed.
Privacy-wise, isn't this completely on-brand and expected from Meta? Is anyone surprised by these kinds of revelations?
No. Read the book "Careless People". Meta leadership tried to downplay it by saying the stories are exaggerated. It seems doubtful to me.
Won't this cause significant legal issues in two party consent states and have a huge potential to run afoul of revenge porn laws?
Where are all the think of the children people now?
Similar to Pokemon Go big tech can get footage in places not visible from the road. At work in the restroom should be a notification to HR and lawsuits. In some states this would be jail time [1].
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sVTm608LBg [video][50m]
It's cheaper for them to settle in a lawsuit than what they are gaining by doing this. If it wasn't, they wouldn't. The laws are broken.
As is already revealed with Meta leadership knowing that they make 7billion a year on scam ads. They even calculated that global regulations and fines might cost them 1 billion.
So fines and regulations are priced in as a fraction of the net earnings.
https://mashable.com/article/meta-7-billion-dollars-scam-ads
Add it to the list. Here are just a few more of their flagrant privacy violations.
Facebook/Meta pays teens to install a VPN so they can snoop on user traffic and decrypts competitors traffic (Snapchat) under guidance of Zuckerberg himself. [1]
Facebook/Meta covertly backdoors users phones [2]
Facebook requests phone number for 2FA and then uses for ads/tracking without disclosure [3]
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/26/facebook-secret-project-sn...
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20260116094503/https://localmess....
[3] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1186...
Putting a camera and microphone on your head and wearing it all day, connected to a platform with Mark Zuckerberg at the helm... what do you expect?
Deserved.
We have been telling people to stay away from big USA tech companies and what they do??
Buy a smart glass from said company!!
No symphaty, and knowing how the system works, these videos will never be deleted and will move from one hanf to another, until somebody leaks them online or request money.
People never learn!!!
Source: Someone who says that someone said that someone anonymous said. (Literally)
> Source: Someone who says that someone said that someone anonymous said. (Literally)
Weird way to say workers given anonymity for whistleblowing interviewed by two reporters and not denied by meta in their response?
You have to record no? Why would you record while in bathroom? Or do they record always?
Great! Maybe I can finally get a woman to see me naked!
Meta does Meta things (again). People surprised (again).
True creeper glasses.
AI = Mary, Moses and David from Kenya, ...
Still, amazing how Meta (and Luxottica?) massaged the media to have the wearers of its dystopian goggles not labeled how they ought to be labeled: Glassholes.
[flagged]