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
[–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Not everybody is fine with having their face be recorded and get put in a Meta ad or put on PornHub etc. If you know you’re being recorded, you can hold them liable

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    Again, you're assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.

    The only reason why there's not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they're actually selling.

    Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    Nope, I didn’t say that’s the only way the data will be handled. I did say that a big portion of it might be advertising and other privacy abuses in exchange for money. There’d be great value in smart glasses and at scale for helping near blind people around or people with dementia and the glasses reminding them, showing them stuff they already had forgotten like their payment details or children. But mostly there are gonna be assholes shooting videos of their dates or women in parks without them knowing, making deepfakes from them, jerking off, you get the idea. A blinking red light on smart glasses when recording would be a start at least

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

    My stance is that there's always going to be assholes. Trying to stop them ahead of time by banning technology won't stop them but it will stop legitimate uses of said technology.

    Regulations that would probably be fine:

    • Require recording lights.
    • Require shutter sounds.

    ...because those don't halt the technology. They're just mild annoyances for regular users. To me, that's like "your car needs working headlights and tail lights."

    When I see people asking for "glasses + camera" to be outright banned my alarm bells go off. Both of these things already exist and there's nothing stopping someone from strapping a cell phone or GoPro to their head. Banning such technology feels like burying your head in the sand because you saw someone doing something you don't like with a technology you haven't seen before.

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

    I agree with you that technologies as such shouldn’t get banned and regulated instead. I just kinda lost faith in big tech to regulate itself or the US government for that matter 🤷🏼‍♂️ Instead of thinking “oh this could be bad for people” or “will this be ethical if we do it” they choose to defect first, make money with it, then pay a small lump sum fee from their profits and maybe change things, maybe. I think people are just tired of big tech companies doing whatever the hell they want, so they shout “ban it” outright

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.

    what a strange, creepy future you're looking forward to

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Get your mind out of the gutter!

    Have you ever seen AR glasses demos where someone is inspecting an engine or repairing something? Imagine open source hardware projects being able to offer similar capabilities for any common household appliance. It would be amazing!

    There's infinite amazing and non-creepy uses for tech like this but it'll never happen with unimaginative luddites everywhere!

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

    ah, so you've seen iron man and therefore are confident someone, somewhere will build holo AR interfaces teaching you to do things on hardware that doesn't exist.

    I've worked in AR. These glasses ain't it, and whatever you're imagining is decades away MAYBE, and more likely vaporware and hopium.

    and you're willing to compromise today's privacy for the vague handwaves of potential technology, running on a supposed open software stack like linux, maybe someday?

    CONSIDER ME NOT EXACTLY INSPIRED

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

    Your argument boils down to this:

    • This technology exists because you've worked with it.
    • You want to ban it because it could be used by bad people to invade others privacy.
    • The technology doesn't actually exist.

    You're not making any sense.

    The technology does exist and the software to do repair work with AR also exists: https://aidarsolutions.com/maintenance-augmented-reality/ (Just an example, there's more companies that do it)

    People are using AR for equipment repair every day. It would be fucking nice if every day people could take advantage of that using cheap glasses that include a camera and a display of some kind.

    The only reason why there's not open source projects for this is because the hardware is too expensive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •