top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 30 points 5 months ago (17 children)

How do you even protect yourself and your kids from this? Maybe I can mask up, but I can't expect my partner or her kids to do the same.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Apparently quite a few people are developing ways to defect facial recognition https://www.stratecta.exchange/fashion-that-can-beat-facial-recognition-systems/
    I was pleasantly surprised to find out Zenni now offers a near infrared blocking coating for their glasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    are the prices from Capable a joke? who thefuck pays $6-700 for a pair of joggers or sweater. privacy wear should be affordable, not a luxury. it’s the wealthy class that’s making this a problem in the first place

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Has Zenni gotten rid of the polarized lenses? I checked a few sunglasses and couldn't configure them with polarized lenses....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    How does this "anti-papparazi" thing work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Read the linked article. It goes through a lot methods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I did read it but still can't grasp it.

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

    reflective particles in the garment nullify flash photography by fucking with the exposure to wash out other elements of the subject

    here's an example photo of Trevor Noah wearing one of these scarves without and with flash:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    So it only works with flash on. Not that helpful, then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    yes but these are designed to deter a specific type of intrusion from paparazzi, hence their popularity with celebrities. if it was effective at all times, it would be blinding to the naked eye, which would limit its usefulness to most people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If someone were to take a picture of me without flash, the scarf would lose their effect. I believe the glasses won't use flash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    if you're looking to evade passive facial detection by smart glasses, a facial covering like a surgical mask is probably the lowest profile solution, followed by those bulky IR-proof glasses like what Reflectacles sells. maybe a combination of both but at some point it becomes conspicuous to have your face covered so fully all the time, not to mention impractical for socialization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    There are already cameras everywhere. As you walk down the street you're probably on and average of 3 ring cameras at any time. Cars have cameras, stores have lots of cameras (the fake ones you see, and the real hidden ones). There have been pen cameras and tie clip cameras for decades. Glasses cameras aren't really a big step.

    🤔 1
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Youre telling me Meta didnt have this from the start?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 107 points 5 months ago (58 children)

    Only predators buy those glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I support smart glasses. Not from meta or Google or whatever the fuck.

    The more cameras we point at cops and people in power, the better.

    The moment an open-source privacy focused set of frames exist, I'm buying it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I agree with your premise, but only if it's stored locally and not sent to a corporation, who is likely going to share videos that help to convict other people of crimes but not allow access to video that shows cops doing something wrong.

    But also, there should be a legal requirement to have a light visible when recording. If you're found violating this, it should at least be a sizable criminal offense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    It should have to light up when recording. Like, at a hardware level.

    Surveillance at critical points like arrests seems important in order to have basic accountability. Surveillance all the time if you know it or not is more of a slippery slope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Have a light that beams out from beside the sensor through the same lense, no way to cover it without blocking the camera

    Have a visible dot shutter that closes when it's not recording,

    Require you to touch the temple on the frame the whole time it's recording.

    There are ways

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (25 children)

    I've heard those sorts of glasses can be handy if you're visually impaired and, say, clothes shopping. You can ask the glasses "hey, do these items match?"

    Still creepy in the wild, but there are some valid use cases.

    edit to add examples:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago* (13 children)

    Nah. My wife is legally blind without her prosthetics. She's rather stay blind than use these.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    What do you mean she is blind without her prosthetics? Isn't she still blind with the prosthetics or do they help with vision somehow?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Glasses to help see are prosthetics. People can be legally blind when not wearing their corrective lenses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    Ok that's fair. I've just never heard of glasses referred to as prosthetics and assumed you meant some kind of artificial seeing device. Which is suppose is what glasses are but I was hoping for a more high tech answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    (the account you just replied to isn't the account with the blind wife who uses prosthetics)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    While this is correct, I AM, in fact, someone who wears glasses and knows some stuff about them and their uses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Yep, no shade on you, I just didn't want the other person to think they'd heard back from the other other person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Real question: do other lemmy viewers not show usernames on posts or do a lot of people just not read them? Cause I’ve deffo had other instances of people not realizing they were talking to someone else.

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

    You don't need glasses for that, you could simply use an on-hand camera, maybe a special phone for those with vision problems

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    The glasses seem like a better form factor than a hand-held phone, for the use case where you're out and about and your hands are full, managing a service dog harness and/or cane, and trying to shop.

    So, I guess you could mount your special phone for the blind on your chest or waist and have it talk to bone conductive headphones you're wearing. And pick up whatever you'd like described and hold it in front of your chest/waist.

    (There's other options, the glasses just seem more convenient because they're on your face.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    You could carry a laptop and use it's webcam too

    It's down to convenience. I'm already looking at what i'm what i'm trying to film, instead of just recording that, i'm looking at my phone screen to try to record the thing and not even witnessing it in real life. I'm at my kids track meet, any time i'm trying to record him running i'm experiencing it through a 5" amoled screen so i my wife can have a video instead of just being there.

    We can figure out how to make them impossible not to notice they're recording. we just need privacy shutters or to have to hold the temple or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    you're visually impaired and, say, clothes shopping. You can ask the glasses "hey, do these items match?"

    those are some fucking priorities. a little fashion over human rights

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Yes, and anyone that buys these glasses to increase their independence is a predator, like the parent poster says. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    to increase their independence? are you kidding me? then don't be surprised when that so very important function to give clothing advice will suddenly become a subscription service with ever increasing fee! all the while still trampling on the privacy of everyone near you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, how dare someone want to buy dog food without asking for help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    while, yet again, trampling on human rights, out of convenience no less.

    I mean! they could be even more convenient, and just order it online! and what do I care if that's what they do. this tech is really not so necessary.
    but of course I am the scumbag if I don't like the blind person scanning my face with the Google Lens app just so they can politely greet me by my name.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -43 points 5 months ago (22 children)

    Or people with a bad memory for faces and names, who find one of the most harrowing social situations to be when someone walks up to them and says "hey, how you doing?" With no recollection of who this person is or how they know you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You described me, and I still find those glasses creepy. It’s so much cheaper, easier, and less ethically fraught to just say “oh hey man how are you doing!” and fake it for a minute. Or tell them you’re having a brain fart and keep wanting to call them [random name] even though you KNOW that’s not it. Or, god forbid, just be upfront with people and tell them you’re face blind AF and struggle with placing faces to people outside context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Oh yeah, that's a good reason to aid the expansion of global surveillance. Let's all be complicit with the police state because we can't acknowledge our social anxieties with a bit of honesty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not what I was addressing. I was addressing a comment that said "only predators buy those glasses" by pointing out an obvious alternative motivation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    that kind of motivation is a bit like "its winter and I'm very cold, lets set the city to fire". I guess it won't be cold anymore for you! It's not for wanting to harm other people, it's just an obvious alternative motivation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    So one should just sacrifice everyone elses safety and privacy because you're bad a recognizing faces? I get that it can be helpful, but you are literally uploading strangers faces and likeness to Meta's servers without their consent. It's creepy and predatory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago

    No, again, this is not what I was addressing. I responded to a comment saying these would only be of interest to "predators". You yourself say that you get how they can be helpful, that's all I was saying too. All the rest of this is arguments that are being imagined.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Yep!

    And as cameras get smaller, pretty soon any glasses will be suspect, meaning that those that need vision correction without being able to wear contacts for whatever reason will also end up lumped in with the creeps.

    This is like Batesian mimickry but stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Oh don't worry. Google filed for a camera contact lens patent years ago. It's coming as soon as they can figure out the tech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    This sounds like a bigger underlying problem that can be addressed with a long term solution that does not leave you reliant on a second fragile, expensive battery-powered device with planned obsolescence and social stigma as likely risks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Man, some of ya really need to learn how to socialize

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Normally I'd agree but that can just come with being on the autism (and other) spectrums sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Oh I'm quite aware, but state sponsored surveillance tools are not the answer to that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Oh yeah no arguments here.

    Meta execs deserve the woodchopper and all.

    Though it gets difficult when its someone's only available answer. I get why some people would choose it, but also agree as a whole its detrimental to society.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    And yet, people keep using Meta stuff...

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The networking effect in action.

    If you've got a dedicated group of friends on a platform and you can't figure out how to move them all at once, you're unlikely to socially isolate yourself just because they ratchet up the enshittification another rung.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Yeah.

    At the same time, I think people don’t really understand how toxic Facebook is. It’s a physical health hazard for one relative of mine, a mental one for some others. I’m not exaggerating when I say it would be better for their health if they drank and smoked cigarettes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Plenty of people do both.

    I don't think Facebook, strictly speaking, is the problem though. In my experience, it's the social isolation and poor quality of care that is all too common among Americans young and old alike.

    Facebook is a lampry on the neck of a dying man.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    This is going to be so illegal in EU

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago
    [–] 4 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I can't get facebook off my phone. I can put the app to sleep but it's always going to be there. It's such an invasion of privacy but I don't know how to deal with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago*

    Some manufacturers mark bundled crap as essential system apps you need root to get rid of, but usually you can disable them which effectively uninstalls it in every other way except it will still take storage space. I wonder if your ROM just used the word "sleep" for that functionality?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Can you use ADB to remove the app? Look it up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    It's not an android so I don't think so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    22 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    3 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    1 comment in c/meta@lemdro.id view that post