475
Woman Hailed as Hero for Smashing Man's Meta Smart Glasses on Subway (futurism.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
333 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 11 months ago (28 children)

Who else would wear this shit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    People with the need for A/R overlays on their vision? I can see their use in very specific situations but IDK why you would constantly wear them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    This tech for blind people could become fantastic, ai in general should be great for people with disabilities.

    Same for a lot of jobs. I’m colourblind and can’t be an electrician, but if I had AR labelling the wires in basically real time it would be a different story.

    Jackasses making weird noises on the subway and filming people ruin the potential of this stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    This is not an accessibility tool, and you'd need to fuvk with it a lot to make it one, and it still sends everything to Facebook-respectfully: fuck you and fuck your disability if your accommodation is to be a corporate ur-snitch; I'll kick your metaphorical crutches out from under you and laugh about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (11 children)

    Agree w the fuck you part but not with the anti-disability imagery. Anyone can become disabled, and ppl with actual disabilities have it hard enough without that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    If your accommodation is to sell my soul to a megacorp that works with the death squads that are eventually going to come for me, I'm gonna kick your crutches out from under you and laugh at how you can't get up in ways I wouldn't dream of if someone who hadn't chosen to violate my privacy and take what will in the near future be a risk with getting me put in a concentration camp, that person being hurt and suffering is funny in kind of a poetic way, where the same action on someone who hadn't decided their disability entitled them to violate my consent would just be fucked up and concerning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (9 children)

    Just say break their Google glasses, and fuck. You.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Nah, because its the disability being leveraged to harm me with a total lack of ethics or concern by a spectacular piece of shit. The disability becomes the aggression, or a shield for it, here.

    And so hurting them on that axis becomes funny and good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    I am talking about people on actual crutches. Stop talking about kicking out crutches. That is cruel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Its the one I've had to fuck with for a year+ the various times I've re-learned to walk. And it was occasionally very funny when I'd slip while doing so.

    And I've been through enough of this shit that 'cruel' doesn't feel like the criticism you seem to think it should. I'm kind of proud of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I'm sorry you had to deal with that. But it is not as funny to others as it seems to be for you. 

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Why do I care what you find funny?

    Edit: most peoples' senses of humor are toxic hierarchalist moral-bludgeon nonsense, and their laughter is genuinely disgusting. I don't know if that's you, but it's on the border of null hypothesis for anglophones.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Generally it is not good to attack people with crutches.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Generally those crutches are not a tool of oppression directed at me, generally those crutches aren't their user actively selling my soul to the devil in silicon valley, or my body to the storm troopers who are going to kill me before the decade's out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    I suffer from prosopagnosia (face blindness), so facial recognition would be legitimately useful for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Unfortunately it's unlikely for this to be implemented in a privacy-respecting way. Arguably, even if it never "phones home", it's always going to be a more risky option—e.g. police can seize the glasses and see who you've seen, whereas they can't seize your brain and see what faces you've seen. You might be fine with that risk, but will everyone you ever meet be fine with it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    There's no privacy in public. End of story. There's no privacy to respect in a public space.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    You don't just wear glasses in public. You wear them in private settings too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    ok, this isn't a private setting though. If she had attacked him for filming her in private i'd %1000 support her. I dont support ppl being violent because they feel like it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Cool, run a local tool. No harm in that.

    But ifyou snitch on my location yo Facebook at all times, I'm gonna break the glasses and whatever you put them on, no remorse.

    You do not get to surveil and put people at risk like that, your disability can get fucked if that's your accommodatin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Reasonably speaking, you have no way of knowing if smart glasses are local or remote processing just by looking at them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    reasonably speaking, there are no smartglasses today that are capable of doing that locally, and even if there would, that does not guarantee in any way that it keeps the data locally. youre a walking surveillance camera, and like it or not, if people don't like that, that's their decision.

    I'm surprised teslas and other such surveillance trucks are not vandalized more.

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