you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 88 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -33 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You do in Germany, except during events/gatherings/marches.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago

    I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should

    1. overthrow the orange turd
    2. 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 5 months ago (1 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You mean you can't tell the difference between someone visibly recording you and someone recording you with a hidden camera? You feel like both of those are the same thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago

    I feel like if the problem is being recorded, it doesn't matter whether it's done with a hidden or visible camera.

    I feel like if the problem is being secretly recorded, you should be just as mad at bags possibly being used to xonceal a recording phone as at these glasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving battery capacity and power consumption puts that idea to bed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nope. These things can certainly take pics regularly and still last.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Recording from a camera consumes upwards of 1W on mobile platforms. With the ~160mAh battery in Ray Ban Meta smart glasses, the battery would last about 40 minutes, assuming they are doing nothing else. Given that the radio needs to be powered to upload that footage somewhere, and doing all this will keep the SoC in a higher wake state, that is a very optimistic upper bound.

    I'm sorry that you and everyone who downvoted me think that hating on Meta is more real than physics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    You still fail to understand you don't need to be continuously filming to monitor what's going in front of a camera.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I didn't grasp that by "recording" what you meant was "taking a picture every so often", no.

    How often, then are you saying they turn on the camera, focus and expose, capture the picture, wake up the SoC, and power the radio to send the data off somewhere?

    Should be relatively easy to test this by monitoring current flow to the camera, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Go ahead and test yours. Repeat after each update and check if it's location and/or time dependent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Don't have any, obviously 🙄

    So, are you going to cut the conspiracy crap until you have evidence? Thought not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Facebook introduces private messages. They're private. Ah, no! They sold these messages to Microsoft, Amazon and Huawei! -- They trust me, dumbfucks!
    Facebook has all interest to work for the benefits of its users. Ah, no! They literally experimented on people to see if they could make them more depressed or more happy. -- They trust me, dumbfucsk!
    Facebook has an active moderation. Ah, no! They knowingly let disinformation spread and lead to a genocide because engagement numbers were good. -- They trust me, dumbfucks!
    Instagram minds kids and their sensitivities. Ah, no! They have algorithms to exploit their insecurity because engagement numbers were good, who cares if a few of them end up depressed and kill themselves. -- They trust me, dumbfucks!
    Whatsapp has E2E because they value privacy. Ah, no! The app sends home a copy of the private key on demand, rendering the whole thing pointless. -- They trust me, dumbfucks.

    Meta's glasses would never take a picture without their wearer's explicit consent.

    Fortunately for them, some people are really really really dumbfucks to a point Forrest Gump would look like a genius next to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    We get it, you hate the company, for a variety of reasonable and unreasonable things.

    And because of that, you hate all its users and have no qualms about assaulting them.

    I no longer know which thread this is because voyager isn't showing context, so if your reply was off the point I don't gonna correct you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -46 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    What right would be violated here exactly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    The proliferation of cameras in public is not a good thing. I am yet to see data showing it reduces criminality (supposed to be the intent), meanwhile it's a massive surveillance system.

    And the fact that a given situation is bad is hardly a good argument to promote making it worse.

    Meta collects data on everyone: from contact info in cellphone through their apps, uploaded photos, videos etc. If you don't have an account nor consent to anything, they will just not show the data, but will still build the profile combining different sources and feed it to its algorithms.

    It has been a well known practice for many years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Facebook has a profile on everyone. Accounts or not. They are just like every other data broker. All they want is access to more data and more data.

    All that medical data is the holy grail.... Anyone who thinks medical data will remain private is naive. All it takes is very deep pockets and lawmakers who want contributions to change the laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -29 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    there's absolutely a way to draw a line. no smart glasses. even if there wasn't, no regulation for the sake of regulators being too dumb is the worst take possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    No smart glasses. Alright, then I would wear hidden camera's in the buttons of my shirt. The point I'm trying to make here, is that this is not a technological debate. It's about freedoms: having your freedoms means having to respect others' as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Like respecting others' freedom to a reasonable degree of privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    To draw a line between what is and isn’t reasonable is impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    What fact about yourself are you least willing to share with strangers?

    If there is no way to tell if that is a reasonable question for me to ask, then by what metric do you decide whether or not to answer it? Does that metric act as a stand-in for "reasonableness" to you, and if so then how do you square it with your earlier insistence that drawing such a line is impossible? If not, why?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    why the need for hidden recording equipment anyway? do you wanna spy on women that badly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments