- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
Friends punch friends who wear these glasses
If you want THE sci-fi story for this, read Snow Crash
Hey, asking for a friend…
But does anyone know of a clip-on LIDAR emitter we could wear? Those things absolutely burn holes through digital camera sensors!
Will these have DLSS5? I don’t want to look at ugly people on the subway.
exploit the exploits. or just lay there. white hats use exploits to fix machines. like locking the neighbor’s gate they left open. or steal their stuff. your call
qr codes cant really contain a zero-click malware, theyre just links (unless theres a terrible vulnerability in the browser which there probably isnt)
snook goggles
It’s been a while since phones started asking for user confirmation to open a link from a QR code.
Do they record your voice also? Because they may violate some wire tap laws.
Remember when people got punched for wearing Google glasses?
Peppridge farm remembers
Now we can punch everyone wearing Ray Bans
I was kinda down with that already.
Yeah that wasn’t humanity’s brightest moment.
Stopped this bullshit for a decade or so
Stop advocating violence against people who might be recording video in public, just because the device doing it is on their face.
Removed by mod
You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights
What right would be violated here exactly?
Gee… try hanging out at a playground with these glasses and get back to us.
facebook knowing my personal information against my will goes against my right to privacy. there are also the ethics of recording people in secret instead of making it very obvious. no, a blinking red dot does not count, and it can also be covered with a special purpose-made made black sticker.
now that i think about it, I’m just not comfortable being filmed without consent by strangers at all, in any way, regardless of where the images end up.
i don’t think people should get used to it either. it’s incredibly creepy, even if no law is broken where you live.
and yes, i do understand that in many places just being in public reduces your right to privacy so that you’re legally allowed to be photographed as long as you’re not the focus. i don’t care. still creepy.
If recording in public wasn’t legal, then cops could legally arrest you for filming them brutalizing people for no reason.
I’m sure you’re aware while you traverse in public you are on camera pretty much the entire time, right? There are cameras everywhere always filming, some you know about and can clearly see, some you will never know about and never see. Your face is in a database whether you consent or not.
The part about Facebook knowing your information without your consent? Do you have an account with them?
I agree it can be creepy. But where I live, and in the US, as well as many other countries, you have no expectation of privacy in public. That’s why it’s called public. It might feel right to want to impose some restrictions on public photography, but since there’s absolutely no way to fairly draw a line, it’s better to not impose limits at all.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook does the unreasonable searching and we pay them for any data they collect
Funny how people think they have a “right” of privacy in public… there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. Besides, there are cameras EVERYWHERE always filming.
This only makes sense if you imagine rights are granted to you by your wise and benevolent king when he’s in a good mood and no one else.
And you’re the second person in this thread who can think. Thank you.
I’ve been threatened with violence twice already in this very thread, in the hypothetical scenario that I would film them. I don’t think Lemmy is for me. Too violent.
Quite many when used anywhere except in public space.
You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public. Do you punch every person filming in public? and if you punch someone wearing the glasses, most likely they weren’t even recording.
You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public.
Uhhhh, you actually do.* I am not sure if you know, but different places have different laws.
Not in the US
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook is the one doing the unreasonable search, and we simply buy their data
most likely they weren’t even recording.
Sweet summer child
You didn’t answer the question. You could just have said that you’re overreacting because it’s tech associated with Meta and you don’t like them, even though it’s basically the same as a phone, just on your face.
You think smart glasses have enough battery to record constantly? lol.
You do in Germany, except during events/gatherings/marches.
I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should
- overthrow the orange turd
- campaign for it democratically
not go around punching people for violating a legal right they do not have. Your discomfort at maybe having your picture doesn’t entitle you to violence.
If I see someone filming me, I ask them to stop. That will escalate if they don’t.
I think what people are missing here is the intention. There’s generalised filming of your surroundings, surveillance cameras…these glasses are intended for use in a social capacity. That will move into privacy issues and perverted use.
These peoples right to use these glasses, as far as I’m concerned, does not eclipse my privacy or lack of desire to be filmed and put on Metas platforms and if I find someone using them on me they’ll be fucking told.
Most likely either the glasses are in a state of recording, or the wearer has no idea what it’s doing. Damned! After so many scandals, people still assume Meta will do what it claims and not trick its users! Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Fool me 42 times, more, please MOOOOORE!
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving battery capacity and power consumption puts that idea to bed.
A clear violation of the social contract deserves a swift response. Those glasses come off your face, and onto the pavement.
Who made this social contract? I certainly didn’t. You want to be able to tell everyone else what the social contract is, and assault them if they don’t comply.
Fascist.
When you say “fascist”, you do realize that fascism involves crowd control and these glasses are a dream for a fascist regime? All the speech about “cameras everywhere is ok” falls right in the authoritarianism thinking, that’s just a step from fascism.
Control of the public sphere is not a hallmark of fascism, no. Control of the private sphere is.
Either way though, using violence to force your political views on others is more fascist and more wrong than any amount of surveillance.
This account ^ is going very far out of its way to make very bad points and overlook obvious gaping privacy violations, which are things that can be both identified and stopped.
The takeaway of massively privacy invading glasses is they can always be stopped at both the individual and the systemic level.
No they don’t. I might actually go film on the sidewalk just outside your home, and there would be nothing at all you can do about it.
Removed by mod
I don’t appreciate the threat of violence. I won’t surrender my property to you, you will not destroy my property, you will not hurt me without me defending myself, and your attorney will not bend the law for you.
I think the real problem is that you don’t seem to realize/care how gross and rapey you sound. That’s… maybe something to work on.
This may be perfectly legal but it is absolutely a dick move and people will HATE you for it. The are so many scenarios where perfectly reasonable people will find this behavior extremely unsettling, at best, and possibly threatening.
And you are incorrect in assuming that “there would be nothing [the subject] can do about it “. In the real world there are plenty of people who will risk an assault charge to deal with someone being a disrespectful dick, and many more who will act if they feel threatened.
Now, might doesn’t make right, but are you right? Going against social norms and risking extrajudicial retaliation to fight injustice is commendable. But this isn’t sitting at a lunch counter during segregation or protesting at Stonewall. In a world where 1 in 3 women will be stalked in her lifetime ( in the US according to the Justice Department), why is this the hill you want to die upon?
It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording. If you don’t want to be recorded, you can just stay the fuck away from them. You can’t avoid cameras/recording devices you can’t see. Fuck meta, and fuck anyone else wearing their garbage, privacy invading glasses.
It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording.
Really? I routinely keep my phone in my breast pocket whenever I wear a shirt with one, and enough of it sticks out for the camera to see above the top of the pocket. I’d look no different recording or not, let alone it being obvious if I’m doing it. It’d be shaky body-cam style footage, but that’s not the point.
Not relevant to the discussion, but how have you not managed to lose your phone to the toilet bowl putting in your front pocket like that?
Yeah, it’ll be really hard to spot the giant dorky glasses with the laser beam recording LED.
Of course, in practice you don’t behave differently when you spot someone holding their phone up in the street, because you’re already behaving like you’re being watched because you’re in fucking public.
People with legal issues, immigration issues or violent exes will absolutely dip if they see someone recording. I have none of these problems and I will always avoid gettIng recorded by randos if it’s easy to do so. I can’t reasonably avoid every Ring cam in my neighborhood but I will happily slide 10 feet to the left to avoid becoming collateral damage in some dbags insta reel.
So you can do the same thing when you see someone wearing the glasses, then. You won’t always be able to spot them, of course. Just like you can’t spot if someone’s filming on their phone all the way down a train carriage, or in a crowd.
If your immigration and law enforcement agencies are so awful (I assume most people here are American, and so they are) that normal people recording videos risks harm to people who haven’t done anything wrong, then it seems like the focus should be on that first, and video recording in general second.
People in this thread want to punch wearers of smart glasses because they hate Zuck. They all have issues if their rage comes out that way.
Removed by mod
I’m not going to wear the video glasses. But if I see someone assaulting someone over some stupid gadget, I’m going to try and help that person. Take your violent fantasies elsewhere, sicko.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
But violence isn’t the answer. And certainly not to people doing legal stuff in public. Wearing a Google Glass in private is different though.
Violence is SO often the answer.
All I’m saying is last time this tech trend came around, enough people who had a problem with it took drastic actions that directly affected the popularity of wearing a spycam on your face.
Wouldn’t surprise or upset me if history repeated itself.
Wouldn’t surprise me either. But it’s a hugely illogical reaction.
Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.
I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can’t behave.
Id rather nobody have one.
Look, taking such glasses into a locker room is a problem. But someone wearing them in public is not. Anyone punching someone who does that should be taken to jail, simple as that.
How is it illogical if it worked? It might be immoral, but there’s a clear through-line of cause and effect.
It’s illogical because you’re being recorded for far more nefarious purposes anyways.
Humans are illogical in most cases. It’s something you have to put up with when living in a society.
You can make the claim that it’s immoral or something, but you cannot claim it’s illogical.
doing legal stuff in public
Just because its legal doesn’t mean its right
See, what’s “right” is a (shared) opinion. One of the consequences of living in a free country is that other people can have their own opinions.
Amid a second Trump presidency that is going very poorly is truly a wild time to start crowing about a person’s rightful freedom to be dumb on purpose.
deleted by creator
The smartest thing you did today was delete that comment. What happened, did you have an epiphany?
Have fun beating up journalists! I’m glad you aren’t a politician.
If you think something is wrong then, unless that risk places you at actual risk of harm, you can have that conversation - in public forums, at the ballot box, with your political representatives. If, rather, you want to dictate what you think is right on everyone, with threat of violence then that is something else.
Surveillance is a form of violence that those wearing the glasses are imposing on us.
You need to look up “violence” in the dictionary.
nothing is being dictated. surveillance is violence. if you harm me, maybe i will reduce that harm, also using violence. fuck around and find out logic.
You need to look up “violence” and “harm” in the dictionary.
If you wear this, you’re an agent of the gestapo.
The Gestapo, known for using violence to suppress the activities of those they don’t like without allowing the public to come to a democratic decision on the matter? Interesting.
Removed by mod
I agreed with you up to this statement, no Karen, getting filmed in public is not violence, even if it’s concealed, Jesus Christ
Consent scales, the one thing we all owe each other is basic human decency and a right to live our lives unimpeded as long as you’re not harming anyone. Filming/eavesdropping/invading boundaries and making people uncomfortable in a space let alone their own skin is grossly invasive
It absolutely is! But you know what it’s not? Violence. As soon as you start being hyperbolic you lose nearly all credibility because now I think “right this person is being dramatic”
Filming in public is not a form of violence in and of itself. Have you ever noticed that the public is called “public”, which is the opposite of “private”?
sharing that information with facebook is the violence. i don’t care if you take a photo and print it out to have it in a photo album. i care when i am in a big tech database, or even worse, an intelligence agency database. not that the two are very separate.
That’s a twisted view on the definition of violence… Anyhow, how would you distinguish between people filming for journalistic purposes, people filming and sending it to Meta, and people filming for other reasons? How would you decide who deserves your violence?
When the law abandons the people, the law of the jungle returns.
One of those people
?
A loser
Are you calling me a loser? If so, would you care explaining why you consider me a loser?
Yeah, putting cameras in glasses is a really stupid idea
People hitting other people because they don’t like whatever legal activities the other person is undertaking, that’s stupid.
You would have fought for the confederacy because it was legal to own slaves
No? I just don’t think filming in a public place is wrong. Why would it be? No one has been able to provide a reason.
People have said: facebook analytics, ICE tracking, and a general discomfort with being ‘seen’ always. You won’t accept any of these because you are a corporate tool.
The first two seem like reasonable concerns, but like, people have eyeballs. When you go out in public… people are seeing you. If someone has a photographic memory and the savant ability to perfectly replicate what they’ve seen by drawing it, would you take issue with them? Obviously an edge case, but those people technically also exist. Their cooperation with authorities to me to share what they’ve recorded is the issue you would take.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe privacy in one’s own home ought to be a legal right, but I don’t understand extending it into a place where that’s functionally impossible on a number of levels. I’ve been recorded plenty where I live by people pulling out their phones. While I do feel some level of tension from that due to the current state of our government, I don’t think that public recording on a fundamental level shouldn’t be a allowed. Hell, even in secret, sometimes people have security camera systems around their living space and the camera’s “reach” into public spaces. Also I’ve secretly recorded conversations I’ve had as well for legal and employment security reasons.
The reason it’s wrong is because the device filming is sending data to police and corporations, who frequently abuse the law. People do not have a problem with you using any other camera, such as a phone or camcorder. The problem is the specific device, not filming in general.
Why do you assume it is only happening in public? Since it is hidden cameras, in glasses, they can be recording anywhere (and even if the user hasn’t asked them to record explicitly, they are probably sending data back to their servers anyway - we know they have been doing that with microphones for literal decades already).
I protest against this for the same reason I would protest against the government flying tens of thousands of drones around the city to track every person’s whereabouts and location history. Facebook gives the police unfettered access to their information. It’s like a Ring doorbell, but dumber looking and it moves around.
If you’re sitting next to me with these fuckass glasses on, then you are giving the government live video feed of me. The only difference between this and a drone that’s personally following me is that technically, this doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because the government isn’t the one sending a mindless drone after me with a camera, Facebook is. It’s only technically not a violation of my right to privacy, in the same way that deporting people for saying “from the river to the sea” is only technically not a violation of the First Amendment.
“Never believe that
anti-Semitespeople like this person are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. Theanti-Semitespeople like this person have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”Jean-Paul Sartre
pretty close to the brightest in the past decade, tho
On a similar note, Flock is known to do OCR on bumper stickers. I’ve recently found myself wondering if there’s any sanitization being done to the OCR output before it gets stored in whatever database they’re using.
Because Bobby Tables.
I can work on this… give me a few days. Someone come back and check in tho - I’ve got a huge demo meeting Friday.
As an aside - if you come back I’ve got a new firewall we’re releasing open source on codeberg. Linux only because some functions won’t work on windows. Working on OS Agnostic version.
deleted by creator
What kind of sick fuck thinks that’s a selling point?
Mark Zuckerberg.
They “trust me”
Dumb fucks
Not a brick. Infect it so that it seems to work but continually screws up or corrupts data in weird ways. The user will eventually assume the product is a PoS and shelve it, probably without buying another
