301
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
[–] -4 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Yep. And?

Just like today: You have no idea if that person has a hidden camera or a gun or anything else dangerous or what their intentions are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    and that's why local models don't solve any problems with smart glasses. the only solution is to make wearing such hidden or not recording devices a criminal offence. to deter people from trying to do it. also make it know n to the people by making examples out of a few offenders, maybe staged.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Another solution would be to make centralized facial recognition systems illegal.

    That way, you can still carry your phone around and not be charged with "concealed carry of a camera".

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

    yeah, then meta moves to process the video on your phone when it gets the chance, and upload the results to themselves.

    That way, you can still carry your phone around and not be charged with "concealed carry of a camera".

    its strange because we usually don't take it that way, but that is actually concealed carry of a camera

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    Your arguments are all against cameras recording people in public. That has nothing at all to do with AI. Local or not.

    Local AI models do solve the privacy issue of everyone and everything being recorded, classified, and becoming permanently searchable for Meta and via any request they get from law enforcement, sketchy government entities, or anyone that's willing to pay for it.

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

    Your arguments are all against cameras recording people in public. That has nothing at all to do with AI. Local or not.

    yes, and this whole post is about cameras recording people in public. not AI. you then said local AI is the solution. then I said it is not a solution.

    Local AI models do solve the privacy issue of everyone and everything being recorded

    they don't, because again, nobody can tell if that person is using local AI, or if they are collecting data for uploading later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    Local AI models do solve the privacy issue of everyone and everything being recorded, classified, and becoming permanently searchable

    no they don't. a) I don't know if you're giving the data to meta or the fbi or your local pedo ring. b) stop recording people without their fucking consent you chud

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    WTF? Local models run on your local hardware without an Internet connection. Hence, they're not giving any data to anyone except you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    the privacy issue

    what part of ME, NOT TRUSTING YOU, trusting your shifty, creepy ass with my 'privacy' ain't you fucking getting?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •