- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Funny how the website which have the article about GDPR does not let you reject all cookies without paying.
So downvote and move on, that’s what I do. there are likely other news outlets with the same story who respect you more.
Agreed. Here we go: https://archive.vn/6eKHL
Yet another reason why local AI models are so important.
You don’t need to be sending people’s faces to a super sketchy dossier-building company like Meta when you can just do face/object recognition locally on the device.
This tech can be life-changing for people who are visually impaired. I would hate to see it banned just because the first adopter is an evil corporation.
How about not scanning my face at all?
I don’t want people scraping face ID data for personal use any more than I want Meta hoovering up that shit.
This tech could have been life changing if Meta had focused on that purpose instead of engineering perv glasses. Fuck no.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
there is no practical difference. as someone going their way on the street, you have no way to figure out what is happening with the recording the camera takes. you cannot determine if its processed locally, uploaded right to a data broker, or if it is stored locally temporarily for it to be uploaded later.
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.
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.
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”.
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
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.
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.
It’s not only about sending data, it’s also the fact that they’re allowed to record without it being obvious. It needs to be unmistakable when it’s recording
Why does it need to be obvious?
In the US, everyone has the right to record what’s happening in public. Private settings are different, of course.
I know we’re talking about Europe here but I’m genuinely curious how it improves things to make it “obvious” other than annoying legitimate users and doing nothing at all to people who actually want to record people in secret.
Basically, it sounds like the pointless cookie warnings all over again.
Because then you get a chance to control your image. It’s a reminder that you’re being recorded, assuming you’re always recorded isn’t practical. You’re also at that point have the right to express your annoyance, perverts for example will get shamed immediately and in public.
Forcing manufacturers too will help curb illegal recording in private places (offenders will have to work harder to hide the fact that they’re recording)
I don’t think there’s a way to put the genie back in the bottle. You can probably buy some off Alibaba now.
Regulation can, what makes this so unique? You buy something from e.g. Alibaba and use it illegally - if you get caught you’re screwed. That’s enough to scare most people
Let me take a moment to state a universal truth: There’s no such thing as “too much regulation.” There’s just good regulation and bad regulation.
Want to regulate a category of technology that covers, “glasses with built-in cameras”? Ok! We’ll just mount the camera somewhere else.
Or perhaps you want to regulate cameras that have lenses too small to notice from say, a dozen paces? Well, that would ban cameras on smartphones.
Why not ban strapping smartphones to your head while you’re at it? That’s basically what these glasses are, after all.
Tell us: What, specific regulations would you be looking for?
IDK perverts are pretty determined in my experience
Not just perverts. Women have repeatedly caught police stalking them with hidden cameras. Journalists have caught police committing all sorts of crimes with hidden cameras.
Here in my home town, someone caught a local business trying to extort them with a hidden camera.
You’d think that with the possibility of hidden cameras being anywhere, evildoers would be a bit more careful. Nope!
Instead, they’re trying to be the ones controlling all the cameras and secret surveillance. If they’re the only ones that are legally allowed to secretly record people, then what you’ve got is a much more powerful police state.
Good point
Does the EU not have freedom of the press or something?
