Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattDaEskimo | Hacker News Reader

Because you're not _just_ recording your kids. You are a walking surveillance camera that nobody has consented to.

Which is true for all parents recording all kids with every kind of camera, also in a way that is totally un-actionable.

Good faith question:

If your worry is, "I don't know you're recording", what did you do with that information when someone was using a digital camera to video record their kids 15 years ago, with you in the background?

P.S: if your answer is just "you could be a creep", I totally empathize, but this is for the situation where I am actually just a parent.

My phone's camera is not playing all the time and doesn't send the data to Meta. It just records a file locally, it's not the same at all.

That's..exactly how the Meta glasses work :/, and there has been no evidence otherwise so far.

Would love to see it if I missed this.

There have already been stories about meta contractors being able to watch the footage people are recording with the glasses. Recordings included people undressing, on the toilet, and other explicit stuff.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-workers-seeing-dist...

Yes, That’s an opt-in feature. You can record all the footage you want and keep it on your phone, and they won’t see any of it, unless you ask for it be analyzed by their AI (as laid out in the article you shared). Of course if there was evidence they’re doing it when I haven’t opted in I’d dump em.

It’s made clear during onboarding, but I’m sure it could be better.

People don't like to be watched and recorded. That's it.

This data - which includes their facial features, geolocation, and activities is not yours to take and immortalize.

This should be intuitive to any empathetic human being. One person saying "this breaches my sense of safety and privacy" should be enough for you to understand.

Meta was caught so many times on stealing user data and bypassing privacy controls that I don't even know how can you suggest believing them with straight face.

The glasses are a trust destroying device that degrades privacy.

If someone shoves a camera in my face in public I am going to move away from that person. If I see them filming someone with me in the background at least I know what is going on and can judge the situation accordingly.

Now I don't know. Everyone with glasses is a suspect. It's more public tension, hyper vigilance and uncertainty.

> what did you do with that information when someone was using a digital camera to video record their kids 15 years ago, with you in the background?

I'm the asshole that covers his face while flipping off the person with the camera. I've done this for years. It used to be for news or other TV based content that they would blur out the finger gesture which meant blurring out my face. I've also noticed a camera in public places and deliberately stepped behind someone else as a blocker, or just moved to be behind the person with the camera. These are easy to do when it's obvious there's a camera. Glassholes are much more difficult to notice. Comparing these as equivalent is just a lack of being rational.

Everybody has been a walking surveilance camera for at least 26 years if not much longer

Walking microphone at best, though I think not "everyone" until early 2010s.

Given pockets, I don't think the camera part has ever been an "everyone"-level problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com