← Back to context

Comment by deadbabe

3 hours ago

You don’t understand the difference between recording things in good faith vs recording things because you want a reaction you can exploit for personal gains.

Hahahaha, "recording things in good faith." What an insane statement to make to paint this guy in a bad light. Should people also be concerned about walking in good faith, or eating their lunch in good faith? Meta created these creep glasses so people could do exactly what this guy is doing: film people in public (without them knowing). There is no "bad faith" when you're just literally doing what the product is for.

  • The outrage over these glasses is overblown.

    They have been around for a while. At some point it just became trendy to hate on them, but people are completely oblivious to the fact that you are more easily recorded secretly with smartphones. In fact, most viral content you see where someone is being recorded without their consent is from a smartphone, I have yet to see any such content filmed with actual smart glasses.

    The camera is useful for many things besides recording video, but now we can’t have nice things because people think everyone with glasses is trying to creep on them.

    It’s just generic AI/tech bubble rage.

  • This is a strange take…

    1. You’ve inferred that the reason the glasses exist is to enable people to harass other people. That’s a very odd conclusion. 2. Where’s the without them knowing? Meta literally designed the hardware so that you do know that you’re being filmed, unlike almost every other camera on the market. 3. You haven’t managed to separate the decisions and accountability of an individual from the tool that they use to execute those decisions. This is a strange way to look at the world. It places inherent moral values into inanimate objects.

    • 1. Whether what he did is considered "harassment" is debatable. 2. Because it looks like an everyday object and not a camera? If you design a necklace or hat that films people but displays a small light (which can easily be covered up), the vast majority of people will not know they are being filmed. 3. He went up to people in public and asked them questions. Filming their bodies and asking them to turn around was weird and inappropriate but demonstrates the point he is trying to make, which is that this is inherently a bad product that films people with a camera but it doesn't look like a camera, which people naturally find deceptive and creepy, and they don't want to be around it.

      1 reply →

    • it's the opposite actually.

      If someone holds their camera or a phone facing you directly you can guess they are filming you.

      Normally looking glasses with a hidden camera is a Spywear from spy novels. The diode doesn't change much

      1 reply →

Meta is butt raping our privacy 24/7 but god forbid some dude ask 3 questions to its employees, I'll never understand people bootlicking megacorps like these.

Fuck meta and fuck every single of their employee, you can't keep building hell and complain when people hit back

I've heard of journalism before, yes. So? Since when is this harassment?

Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places, I thought we still cared a tiny sliver about privacy? It all went away when we all gave away our private data to the AI companies, or what's the deal?

  • Read The Nerd Reich to see what this is about.

    Or search "nerd reich" or "tech fascism" here to see the instantly flagged topics.

  • > Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places,

    There are a very large contingent on HN who are against restrictions on corporate activities because they envision themselves as potential beneficiaries of a low regulation environment. Many of them also apparently view criticism itself as a restriction.

  • > Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places

    I urge you to see the output of this:

      "news.ycombinator.com".split(".")[1]