302
GDPR trap Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta wearers can be held liable (www.heise.de)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Or we can just not have these or AI and survive just as we have. We dont need screens strapped to our faces, we use them too much as it is.

There's already options for visually impaired and we do not need AI sunglasses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago

    I have issues with face recognition. While I'm not face blind, I have issues with remembering faces. This also cascades into remembering information about people.

    A local face matching system, that can flag pertinent facts to me would be life-changing.

    I refuse to let the likes of meta data mine me however. I also don't want to be in the same boat as the people currently abusing the glasses already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    If you took Metas glasses and removed all options to exfiltrate data from them, and run a local model on them - they would be a great tool! The issue is mainly where all that collected data gets sent - if it can't send data (maybe allow web search using an API which only allows normal search terms, not stuff like BASE64 encoded data), then nearly all of the privacy issues go away, and they could still be really handy.

    It is an active decision of Meta to make these things as invasive as they can get. We should demand better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    We could also go back to hunter-gatherer times and have a mortality rate in the thirties.

    Technology and innovation arent inherently bad, especially if they have many potential uses. The problem arises when adding the human element of how its used.

    On that front... right now I dont think a use case has been proven for wide use of a lot of recent technological innovations. They are investor (and/or pervert) bubbles that are liable to explode soon.

    I cringe at the thought of blanket bans being seen as a solution instead of a temporary patch, as its really just trying to ban aspects of human culture without directly banning (or relearning) it. Which just means those awful aspects will just find another avenue and we end up playing whack-a-mole instead of actually trying to better the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    There's already options for visually impaired and we do not need AI sunglasses.

    What an asshole!

    Might as well say what you mean: "We already have canes for blind people."

    Fuck you! If a simple, cheap technology can vastly improve their lives, why shouldn't we allow that to be developed? It's not hurting you or anyone else.

    Meta is already using tech to hurt people. By your logic, we should ban the Internet because of that!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago

    Fuck you too, you are supporting far worse damage than you think. And no, that is by your extrapolated logic, not mine.

    These glasses are not designed for the visually impaired.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent