[HN Gopher] Facebook, Ray-Ban debut picture-taking smart glasses
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook, Ray-Ban debut picture-taking smart glasses
Author : starkd
Score : 154 points
Date : 2021-09-09 16:41 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.axios.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.axios.com)
| madrox wrote:
| I'll never forget the time I wore google glass to a bar in Palo
| Alto and a very annoyed bartender told me to take them off. I
| wasn't even using them for video or picture taking, which I
| wanted to explain but he had no patience for.
|
| Maybe attitudes have changed but I can't imagine it going much
| better.
| motohagiography wrote:
| The world just wasn't ready for glassholes. I remember those
| and thinking how alien someone's socialization would need to be
| to consider recording in strange peoples faces to be
| appropriate, but now that we are just getting comfortable with
| totalitarianism, they can do their part and keep society safe
| from people with personal boundaries.
|
| Nobody is ever recorded in public to exonerate them. The idea
| someone could have an objection to carrying firearms as public
| aggression but not see how recording people is effectively
| brandishing with an implied threat is going to be one of those
| things we will look back and laugh at.
| madrox wrote:
| Tell that to everyone who saw the George Floyd video.
|
| I watched an excellent interview with Khary Payton where my
| ideas on surveillance really changed.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GnZ1HCRqdB4
|
| I think socially there's a difference at play between
| recording in general and headwear for it, specifically.
| lostgame wrote:
| I don't understand how these are legal. I would sign a petition
| in half a second against this technology's use in public spaces.
|
| I swear to God. What about a camera you can wear in a public
| bathroom don't people get the obvious 'wrong'-ness of?
|
| "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they
| could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
| 0des wrote:
| How do you feel about people walking past you with their cell
| phones pressed to their ear? Surely that camera is also an
| issue.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I trust that people with a cell phone in their ear are
| probably using them to talk. On the other hand, if someone
| has their phone up in the usual taking-a-photo-with-their-
| phone pose, then I'll also assume they're taking a photo, and
| if they are holding their phone out like that in the locker
| room, I'd ask them not to.
| floren wrote:
| I didn't really understand the bathroom objection when it was
| Google Glass, and I don't really follow it now. I've got plenty
| of problems with the general idea of camera glasses, but in
| terms of bathrooms...
|
| The wearer can't really record anything he/she can't directly
| see already. Is the concern that the guy at the next urinal
| might crane his neck over the divider and film your junk? Would
| you consider that acceptable behavior if he didn't have camera
| glasses on?
|
| Is the worry that someone might capture you entering or leaving
| a bathroom stall, or record your back as you stand at a urinal?
| It seems like a regular old cell phone would be a more
| effective way to take sneaky pictures or videos, since it
| doesn't involve popping your whole head under the stall...
|
| It just feels like doing anything truly unpleasant with camera
| glasses would require a _serious_ breach of standard bathroom
| etiquette, and even considering how shitty the general public
| can be, I 've never experienced that level of bad behavior in a
| public bathroom in all my years.
| loriverkutya wrote:
| >The wearer can't really record anything he/she can't
| directly see already. Is the concern that the guy at the next
| urinal might crane his neck over the divider and film your
| junk? Would you consider that acceptable behavior if he
| didn't have camera glasses on?
|
| My concern is the difference between something being able to
| be seen and something being able to be recorded and shared
| later.
| kreitje wrote:
| I've been in a hand full of k-12 schools where there are no
| stall doors. You can walk in the bathroom and make eye
| contact with someone who has their pants around their ankles.
| Etheryte wrote:
| > Alex Himel, VP of AR at Facebook Reality Labs, informed me over
| a Zoom chat that taping over the LED light was a violation of the
| terms of service of the glasses, which prohibit tampering with
| the device.
|
| This is a good summary of the kind of deal buying a pair of these
| would be. Even putting a piece of tape on something you bought
| and supposedly own is a violation of some contract and may in
| theory render your device inoperable. It's not hard to imagine
| that the companion app, which is the only way to use the device,
| requires Facebook login and then you just end up with a few
| hundred dollars worth of regular old glasses.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| So just put a dab of black paint over the light and claim that
| it must have happened when you were painting your door. Though
| it's not clear how they'd ever notice, surely they don't have a
| light sensor inside the camera light that would tip them off if
| it never seems ambient light.
| jws wrote:
| LEDs work both ways. I wrote a tutorial on doing this with an
| Arduino sometime in the early 2000s. I've forgotten most of
| it, so this is going to be vague...
|
| * Instead of driving your LED from one live pin to ground or
| power, put it between two pins (with its current limiting
| resistor unless your microcontroller can safely limit the
| current and you can tolerate the heat in package (RP2040!))
|
| * Forward bias (say pin 1 high, pin 2 low) to illuminate.
|
| * Reverse bias briefly (pin 1 low, pin 2 high) to charge the
| stray capacitance of your pin 2 driver. Then turn pin 2 into
| an input and time how long it takes to change from a "1" to a
| "0".
|
| Your LED is going to be matching up photons and electrons and
| passing electrons across. It isn't great at this compared to
| a photodiode, but it does do it. If the current flow through
| the LED is at least in the ball park of the input current on
| pin 2 you will be able to tell the difference in light
| levels.
|
| It's crude, and may not be workable at all in low light
| levels because the input pin current will dwarf the LED
| current.
|
| But for compliance checking in FB Glass, the camera knows
| when it is in bright light, and if the LED disagrees, then
| you have covered your LED. The cost to implement is one
| package pin and a little software.
|
| Note: I am not necessarily known as nefarious. I used it to
| automatically modulate the brightness of indicator LEDs.
| Bright in the day, dimmer in the dark. The time to sense is
| short enough that you can do it with your indicator and no
| one notices the tiny dark interval.
| wyager wrote:
| Clever hack.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Well, it's a policy that's uncharacteristically protecting user
| privacy, or rather the privacy of those subjected to the user's
| presence, so it's not the best example of onerous TOS.
| grishka wrote:
| > may in theory render your device inoperable
|
| I still can't get over how it is still legal for a manufacturer
| to retain any kind of control over a device after sale. It's
| even more dystopian that you basically can't buy a phone that
| isn't backdoored.
| exporectomy wrote:
| It seems like we're moving out of the 1900s world where
| manufactured objects carried inherent value on their own and
| people paid high prices to retain control of the valuable
| object. People even passed furniture, dishes, books, and
| clothes down from generation to generation because they were
| so valuable but now you can't even give this stuff away most
| of the time. TVs don't get stolen much anymore because
| they're worth so little. Physical things are getting cheaper
| to a ridiculous extent and are being merged with services.
| That world of industrialized materialism might have been an
| aberration historically. I still encounter old people, myself
| included who have an aversion to destroying books,
| electronics, toys, etc. no matter how cheap and useless they
| are.
| grishka wrote:
| The problem is, the devices themselves do have inherent
| value. The manufacturers literally spend extra effort to
| nerf that value to make sure your continued use of the
| device is one way or another dependent on them. The iPhone
| is a very capable general-purpose pocket computer that was
| turned into an appliance that Apple controls remotely.
| nine_k wrote:
| 30 years ago you still could not get a phone line which can't
| be tapped.
|
| At least now you can buy a second-hand phone with an unlocked
| bootloader, and flash it with GrapheneOS or PostmarketOS,
| which likely are not phoning home you location or actions,
| and switch off the mobile and wifi data connections just in
| case.
| bserge wrote:
| And they still can be tapped. Kind of different things tbh.
| This is more like buying a PC in 2000 and the manufacturer
| reserving the right to remove a RAM stick if you
| overclocked it or visited a porn site or something.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Depending on the phone, turning off mobile data might not
| disable the radio, which will continue to ping nearby
| towers. You might need a faraday cage, or a battery-
| removable phone like Pinephone.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Are landlines, like the ones found in commercial buildings,
| backdoored. Can we purchase development boards that the
| suppliers do not control after sale.
|
| Whats difficult to get over is when non-tech companies, e.g.,
| Bausch & Lomb, go along with the nonsense.^1 All this
| supposed corporate responsibility and yet they still partner
| with unethical "tech" companies.
|
| 1 Probably should not be surprised considering B&L is owned
| by Valeant Pharmaceuticals. (Who has sinced changed its name
| to try to escape its well-earned bad reputation.)
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| With Australian Telstra phones, if you called someone and
| they didn't pick up after a number of rings, a dial tone
| would happen. If you whistled a handshake, the reciever
| would PICK UP and yes you literally turned it into a hot
| mic.
|
| Since I no longer have a landline, I can't confirm it works
| now.
| grishka wrote:
| No they are not, because there's a clear boundary between
| _your own device_ and _someone else 's infrastructure_. And
| you could as well build your own landline system -- which
| is exactly what people do in commercial buildings. You
| could also build some sort of scrambler device that goes
| between the phone and the line.
|
| It's the same as asking "is internet backdoored". It might
| be wiretapped, but you can use encryption to avoid that
| risk.
| avalys wrote:
| Why does everything you dislike need to be illegal? No one is
| forcing you to buy these things.
| vitno wrote:
| Its not so much that it needs to be made "illegal", The
| problem is that terms of service itself is a legally
| enforcable idea. Facebook is the one using legal frameworks
| to overstep into our life.
| wtetzner wrote:
| How about we just rephrase?
|
| We should stop making it illegal for people to do what they
| want to things they own.
| grishka wrote:
| Not even this. The problem is that hardware manufacturers
| have what amounts to technological supremacy over the
| rest of the society. If you buy an iPhone, it's not
| illegal to jailbreak it in most countries. The problem is
| that you lack the technology to do so reliably (i.e.
| change the fuses in the SoC to flip it into a less
| restricted mode of operation) so you have to resort to
| vulnerabilities to untether it from Apple's servers which
| you never wanted in the first place. Android is
| marginally better because of the officially unlockable
| bootloader, but there still are various encryption keys
| _within your device_ that you aren 't allowed to see
| and/or overwrite.
| space_ghost wrote:
| Isn't that at the core of the "right to repair" debate?
| sethhochberg wrote:
| Its related, but not identical. "Right to repair" in the
| sense that the FTC is talking about now is largely about
| manufacturers restricting usage of third-party repair
| services or parts - so think of it more in terms of
| Facebook/Ray-Ban allowing independent repair shops to
| swap your cracked camera lens, or an individual who can
| source the parts being allowed to perform the work
| themselves without buying a service contract: things
| which the manufacturer may currently choose to prevent
| via terms of use, or which they might have required you
| to buy a service contract to do.
|
| You making a modification to your glasses to hide an LED
| isn't a repair... at least in the terms the FTC is using
| at present.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Should it be legal to use hidden cameras to record images
| of people without their knowledge? Or should it just be
| legal to deliberately modify small cameras for the sole
| purpose of doing so, and illegal for manufacturers of
| small cameras to implement tamper detection?
| grishka wrote:
| I mean people have been putting cameras in their cars for
| more than 10 years. And at some point, with the
| advancement of neural interface tech, the line between
| eyes and cameras would start to become blurry.
| bko wrote:
| It's not "illegal" to put tape over the led. It's a
| violation of the terms of services and they could cut you
| off from their service.
| grishka wrote:
| The point I'm making here is that the device becomes
| useless without said service, even though there's no
| valid technical reason for this dependency.
| grishka wrote:
| No one is forcing me to buy a phone? Yeah sure. Try to live
| without one in the modern society.
| arkano wrote:
| But don't lots of people live without one though?
| bin_bash wrote:
| it's pretty tough now that we do things like pay for
| parking, provide vaccine status, communicate with
| daycares all via apps
| raimondious wrote:
| No, at least not in the US:
| https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| About 48% of the human population owns a smartphone (that
| doesn't include "feature phones"). 85% of American adults
| own a smartphone. 97% of Americans own a cellphone.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Do you think it should be illegal for a manufacturer to
| implement features in their product that attempt to detect
| and prevent usage of the product that is dangerous or harmful
| to the user or others? Should products with batteries be
| allowed to detect when the battery is being damaged and
| deactivate in order to prevent excessive heat or fire? Or is
| there something specific about tampering with a camera
| indicator light that you feel is deserving of legal
| protection for the end user?
| newbie789 wrote:
| I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I
| personally do find a large difference between the risk of
| fire/explosion and the visibility of an LED.
|
| Furthermore I do in fact think that the distinction is big
| enough to justify legal protection to the end user on the
| basis that one can burn your house down (and can happen by
| accident with no user intervention) and the other cannot.
|
| Personally I think words like "harm" have concrete meaning
| outside of language specifically crafted by marketers in
| order to make awful products more palatable.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Do you think it's controversial whether secretly
| recording images of someone can sometimes constitute
| harm? To me, it's quite clearly the case, so I hadn't
| considered the need to present an argument that
| undisclosed video recording can constitute harm.
| kelnos wrote:
| _Sometimes_ , yes. But always? No, certainly not. There
| are perfectly good reasons to want to record someone
| without their knowledge (e.g. recording law enforcement
| officers while they are in public).
|
| I'm reminded of how phones sold in Japan have a fake
| shutter sound on their camera apps that you can't
| disable. Yes, there's a good reason for it (preventing
| creeps from quietly taking upskirt photos of women on
| subways), but it also removes the ability to take silent
| photos for legitimate reasons.
|
| But in the general sense, I do find this new Facebook
| product to be gross and creepy, far worse than Google
| Glass. And frankly I think a recording light, which will
| easily become washed out and invisible in sunlight, is a
| pretty poor attempt at helping maintain the privacy of
| random people.
| bambax wrote:
| > _Do you think it should be illegal for a manufacturer to
| implement features in their product that attempt to detect
| and prevent usage of the product that is dangerous or
| harmful to the user or others?_
|
| Yes. I use knives for cooking. I could use them for
| butchering my neighbors but that would be none of the
| knives' manufacturers business.
|
| Not just knives. _Anything_ can be used in a dangerous or
| harmful way. You can suffocate someone with a pillow. So
| this line of reasoning leads to any company having the
| right (or maybe the duty?) to monitor us.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Some knives intended for cooking have features
| deliberately intended to make them less suitable for
| stabbing people. Do you oppose this practice, or the
| legality of this practice?
| bambax wrote:
| Not really. I mostly oppose monitoring in the name of
| "security". But I also prefer to be considered an adult
| who's not a murderer and can handle their knives without
| help or active supervision.
|
| So they can make "safe knives" if they wish but I would
| rather buy the other ones.
| gknoy wrote:
| I've never ever heard of this. Can you elaborate? I
| hesitate to say "citation needed" but this seems like an
| extraordinary claim.
| tshaddox wrote:
| https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cutlery-firm-makes-
| blunt-...
|
| They're not particularly popular as far as I can tell,
| but my point only relies on the concept itself as another
| example of manufacturers implementing features to attempt
| to influence how the product can be used.
| cwkoss wrote:
| What is the market for less-useful knives that can't
| stab? I don't understand why this product exists or who
| the customer is...
|
| It's still dangerous via slashing if it's at all useful
| for food prep
| kelnos wrote:
| At least in that case people can (and it seems they have)
| vote with their wallet, and avoid the more limited
| "nannying" product. Given the lack of competition in
| things like mobile phone OSes, that's not always an
| option.
| nl wrote:
| Not quite the same thing, but ceramic cooking knives have
| metal inserts to make sure they show up on airport
| scanners.
| ramses0 wrote:
| eg: kitchen knives do not usually have cross-guards,
| whereas a bayonet does.
|
| https://www.1911forum.com/threads/does-a-fighting-knife-
| need...
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=bayonet+crossguard
|
| It's subtle, but true. I would imagine that a "kitchen
| knife" with a full cross-guard that was regularly carried
| in your belt and implicated in a crime would probably not
| be considered "just a kitchen knife".
|
| eg: all the rules around gun shapes, sizes, etc. etc. so
| they don't become "assault-style weapons" or give people
| impure thoughts when they're out on the shooting range.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/748665339/the-pistol-that-
| loo...
| echelon wrote:
| > I still can't get over how it is still legal for a
| manufacturer to retain any kind of control over a device
| after sale.
|
| Apple is such an amazing company and we're nothing short of
| blessed to have their miraculous hardware grace our lives.
| How dare you want control? You'll take what you get and be
| happy. How dare you want it any other way? Anything that
| takes away from our precious and benevolent gift giver should
| be shunned. They deserve all profits now and forever. Amen.
| grishka wrote:
| Sure, Apple makes great hardware and software. But
| services? I don't want any. I trust myself more than I
| trust Apple, and I have a server I pay for anyway. It's
| about choice. Apple would have to compete with others and
| actually earn its reputation as an online services company
| instead of just abusing its existing market power.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Well.. my main objection would be that it seems impossible to
| detect such manipulation, and therefore these ToS are
| toothless.
|
| As to your complaint: I don't see a problem? Assuming for a
| second that such a scheme would work, it allows transactions to
| happen and devices to be sold that otherwise would not or could
| not.
|
| That's the basic mechanism of how contract law and court system
| help a society: a bank wouldn't have the capability to build
| its own mercenary force to collect debt (or, at least, it would
| be expensive and a nightmare for civil liberties). So,
| counterintuitively, by allowing you to bind yourself to an
| agreement to pay back a loan, your range of options is only
| expanded.
| murderfs wrote:
| > Well.. my main objection would be that it seems impossible
| to detect such manipulation, and therefore these ToS are
| toothless.
|
| I don't think that's true: LEDs can also be used as light
| sensors. If the camera sees a bright day and the LEDs see
| pitch black, you know something sketchy's going on.
| [deleted]
| bobiny wrote:
| I don't see this in Axios or AP article, source?
| Etheryte wrote:
| The post originally linked to a different source [0, if I'm
| not mistaken in my google-fu], it seems that the link has
| been switched to a more neutral source which albeit omits
| some of these details.
|
| [0] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/face
| boo...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Ooh I'm sure that's going to dissuade people.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| "Just trust me"
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/21/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-tape...
| Arainach wrote:
| That's not a good comparison. The user of these glasses isn't
| looking for privacy here (these glasses with the camera taped
| over are simply dramatically overpriced shades), they're
| looking to hide their intent.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "Dumb fucks."
| the-dude wrote:
| Interesting to see no mention of Google Glass or Glassholes.
| coding123 wrote:
| which means it's a paid spot.
| babelfish wrote:
| Or even the Snapchat Spectacles
| Apocryphon wrote:
| It's like Facebook finally caught up to 2016.
| SirHound wrote:
| It doesn't really have anything in common with them other than
| the camera. It's more like the Spectacles
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| The camera was the controversial part
| jonathanlb wrote:
| Shades of Google Glass!
| vineyardmike wrote:
| I really appreciate that FB keeps trying to make hardware and
| products that don't need to be a data collection funnel. It's
| like they want to free themselves from the cursed golden goose
| that is data driven ads.
|
| I really don't appreciate that every attempt by FB to free
| themselves of ads they end up with a product perfect for scooping
| up data so it either flops out of consumer fear and/or turns into
| a data collection funnel.
|
| I want FB to be more than a heinous data trap. I don't think it's
| going to happen though.
| sneak wrote:
| I don't appreciate it, because it means that good product
| designers are going to work at a terrible data collection
| funnel advertising company.
|
| I would really like our world to be one in which attracting top
| talent requires more interestingness than simply being an a
| data vacuuming ad service.
|
| If you work at, or would work at Facebook, you should probably
| follow Bill Hicks' advice.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I don't know if you should paint the entire company's
| employees with the same brush. There are probably people at
| Facebook working on user privacy, trying to fight the good
| fight. Are they still tainted because they are fighting that
| fight at a "terrible data collection funnel advertising
| company"? These companies are huge and have lots of
| departments within that are not feeding the beast at all.
| (Disclaimer: Not a Facebook employee :) )
| bserge wrote:
| Well, it is rather clear which departments have higher
| authority.
| sneak wrote:
| Yes. Working for Facebook and "fighting the good fight"
| involves abandoning your Facebook paycheck.
| type0 wrote:
| > Are they still tainted because they are fighting that
| fight at a "terrible data collection funnel advertising
| company"?
|
| They are, how naive could such hypothetical employees be
| that they wouldn't know FB's stances on privacy?
| slut wrote:
| Insisting that people that work at a company you don't like
| should kill themselves seems a bit much, no?
| sneak wrote:
| It's just a suggestion; I don't insist on much of anything.
| bserge wrote:
| > FB keeps trying to make hardware and products that don't need
| to be a data collection funnel _right away_.
|
| Only 6-12 months later.
| commoner wrote:
| You need a Facebook account to use the "View" app that connects
| to the glasses. Not convinced that Facebook will refrain from
| data collection, especially after some time passes and the
| reviews have already been published.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/faceboo...
| fnord77 wrote:
| I don't suppose these can be used without a FB account?
| commoner wrote:
| Yes, the "View" app requires a Facebook account to log in.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/faceboo...
| novok wrote:
| My guess, it will be as popular as Snap's Spectacles after the
| hype died down. Not at all basically.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Everybody's talking about DSLR vs mirrorless cameras when the
| real topic was Black Mirror cameras.
| type0 wrote:
| the title should be: "Facebook, Ray-Ban debut picture-spying
| smart glasses"
| mdoms wrote:
| If some Silicon Valley turd came anywhere near me wearing these
| things he would be asked - very politely, but only once - to take
| them off.
| coolspot wrote:
| Then what?
|
| You pickup a felony battery and/or assault charge?
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| If you hit them from behind, your crime is recorded on the
| hidden cameras that are everywhere.
| type0 wrote:
| then the battery in the glasses would explode
| [deleted]
| mdoms wrote:
| If he refused to remove his surveillance equipment, yes.
| Absolutely.
| beezischillin wrote:
| Maybe I'm old or have the mentality of an older person, I don't
| know... but this seems very deeply unappealing to me, even though
| I have looked at bluetooth-enabled sunglasses before with
| potential interest. My subjective take-away is that Facebook's
| hardware release attempts are always tainted by the company's
| previous behavior (rightfully so) and they just come off as
| pretty uncool regardless of the marketing angle even when they
| partner with insert brand name here.
|
| Oculus stands alone in that they offer a product that's good
| enough to get some people to ignore that and all the potential
| future Facebook-initiated awfulness that will inevitably come
| down the pipeline. Even then I'd happily buy a Facebook-less
| Oculus device, though I understand that the financial realities
| of VR R&D kinda necessitate having them there.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| If you don't like them get your local government to pass a law.
| These are a great opportunity for creeps and perverts and we
| should ban the devices from the community .
| idworks1 wrote:
| I was thinking about this recently when I took an Asus laptop
| apart. You can get a 720p camera and microphone for $5.00 [1]
|
| It weighs nothing, cost nothing. I just have to figure out how to
| plug it into a raspberry pi for an augmented car experience.
| (right not using my bulky laptop)
|
| I've trained a small model with my voice to respond to basic
| commands. No need to go through a Facebook server or any cloud
| server for that matter. Tech can be a lot of fun when you get
| your hands dirty and ignore FAANGs.
|
| [1]: https://www.ifixit.com/Store/PC-Laptop/Asus-G75VW-
| DS73-3D-Ca...
| tyrfing wrote:
| Interesting to note that Facebook advertises on Axios (see any
| recent copy of Axios AM) and that fact isn't disclosed despite an
| editorial policy stating "If a story involves an investor, board
| member or business partner, we disclose the relationship in the
| story or on the bottom of the story."
| dafoex wrote:
| Honestly, it sounds a lot like Google Glass but with none of the
| actually useful stuff like heads up navigation, AR translation,
| heads up documentation, etc.
|
| But given how everyone seems to have forgotten about privacy and
| invited always on microphones into their homes, maybe this won't
| hit the same brick wall Google did in 2012?
| standardUser wrote:
| Video recording is already ubiquitous since everyone carries a
| camera. Glasses just make it slightly less obvious.
| Duralias wrote:
| Or everyone more aware that anyone with these glasses could
| be recording you at any time.
|
| I can already tell that this will be popular with creeps.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Destigmatizing creeps by turning everyone into one seems to
| be Zuckerberg's overall goal.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Two cameras, separated by a good distance, and no mention of any
| stereo image capability.
|
| I'm actually surprised. Just looking at the glasses, I'd expect
| some sort of "make 3d cameras popular" attempt to help create 3d
| content.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| There is a 3d feature, inside the app. I am guessing it exports
| as 3d post on fb (already a feature that uses iPhone's portrait
| photo to get depth data)
| ortusdux wrote:
| _A white LED light on the front indicates that a picture or
| recording is in progress._
|
| I am generally weary of government regulation, but, depending on
| the implementation, I might be onboard with a law that requires
| cameras and microphones to have a power indicator. Specifically,
| the LED should be hard-wired into the main power wire going into
| the camera/mic, so that it will activate any time those sensors
| are receiving electricity.
| frozenlettuce wrote:
| phone cameras in japan must produce a shutter sound
| https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/4vyko2/shutter_s...
| robofanatic wrote:
| I shouldn't be hands free, especially for video recording.
| There should be a button that needs to be pressed all the time
| and as for taking picture it should have a shutter sound effect
| without ability to silent it.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| You can then just paint over the LED...
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Ok, but what about blind people? Should they not be allowed to
| know they are being recorded? There clearly needs to be a
| "recording" sound that plays while recordings are happening.
| coolspot wrote:
| Also please don't forget about people with both impaired
| vision and hearing.
|
| Hence all cameras must make powerful low-frequency vibration
| when active.
| lozaning wrote:
| What if I've also lost my sense of touch? I think it should
| also have to disperse a sulfur agent into the air, just to
| be safe.
| gregmac wrote:
| > I might be onboard with a law that requires cameras and
| microphones to have a power indicator. Specifically, the LED
| should be hard-wired into the main power wire going into the
| camera/mic, so that it will activate any time those sensors are
| receiving electricity.
|
| Such a law should be equally applied to police body cameras.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| That would present a severe risk to officers working at night
| and turn them into a lit-up target.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| I thought we firmly kicked this idea to the kerb the last time
| they tried to push it on us.
| cs702 wrote:
| If you think addiction to social-media via round-the-clock
| mobile-phone use is a serious problem today, wait until you see
| what addiction will be like via always-on glasses. A new kind of
| always-on addictive-social-porn-on-steroids industry is likely to
| emerge on this technology.
|
| I'm not sure these glasses are a Good Thing(tm) for humanity.
| bserge wrote:
| My retirement plan is to kill myself, failing that, a piece of
| land far from everything and everyone where I would do
| substinence living and a lot of cannabis consumption.
|
| I'd only need around $50k-100k, so it looks doable.
| fassssst wrote:
| The best part of these is the Bluetooth speakers and Bose Frames
| do that without the creepy cameras. It's really nice to go
| running without earbuds.
| neogodless wrote:
| Sibling dicussion (apnews.com)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28471302
| fossuser wrote:
| I take this as work towards the next platform/UX of AR enabled
| glasses. These look a lot better than previous attempts and embed
| the hardware pretty well so that's cool to see.
|
| Absent the actual AR part though I don't think there's much here
| that's an improvement on previous failed attempts (with a big
| exception for improved hardware integration/design which does
| matter a lot). I don't personally find the camera/video recording
| stuff compelling (but I'm also not the target audience) and
| there's still the negative privacy/social element of it. That's
| been talked to death so nothing interesting to discuss there imo.
|
| I think Apple's focus on airpods/lidar and waiting on glasses
| with cameras until they have the actual UX/AR working in hardware
| probably makes sense, but FB always has a bias to shipping and
| testing new stuff early.
| nine_k wrote:
| When you do, say, extreme sports, you can attach your GoPro to
| your helmet, and produce an almost your-point-of-view
| reporting. But this is unpractical in less extreme situations.
|
| I can imagine that various video lessons can benefit from a
| camera positioned right at your eyes; there are several other
| offers for that on the market. OTOH reporting in a social
| situations, like a birthday party, can benefit even more,
| because you don't have to carry the camera around, keep it
| pointed, etc, you can _participate_ and sometimes make shots,
| or shoot video.
|
| As an aside: an ideal reporting camera would have a button like
| "save the shots from 10 seconds ago to now", and "start video
| recording 10 seconds ago". This hardware likely lacks the
| battery capacity for such a mode, though.
| darepublic wrote:
| I would like something like this to try to realtime predict
| events of one sort or another by taking in video and
| performing analysis on the phone
| calebm wrote:
| Facebook wants more eyes.
| type0 wrote:
| Will these glasses be sold in Five-eyes states or will it also
| be distribuited to Nine-eyes and Fourteen-Eyes states?
| woodpanel wrote:
| For a moment: Let's step aside from the glaring immorality of
| Ray-Ban (aka Luxottica SpA) and Facebook.
|
| And instead ask: Is there a reason to not immediately "defend
| yourself" against any person who is looking at you with a pair of
| these? (Physically or not)
| jensensbutton wrote:
| > Is there a reason to not immediately "defend yourself"
| against any person who is looking at you with a pair of these?
|
| Yes. You would be guilty of assault and potentially end up in
| prison. You would not be in the "right" in this scenario.
| snuser wrote:
| if enforced, wouldn't surprise me of flashmob style groups of
| protestors got together often and started doing it
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| I don't have a problem with people wearing these glasses as
| long as I'm allowed to wear full body armor and carry a
| disruptor beam.
| d--b wrote:
| This feels like Holy Motors. Wearing these will inevitably change
| the way the bearer or the person pointed at will behave. They'll
| start being actors in their actual lives. Weird blending of life
| and film...
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Thanks for mentioning the film. Never heard of it. Looks like a
| winner.
| K5EiS wrote:
| Reminds me of the Snapchat Spectacles, but i guess getting
| another form factor for glass cameras is hard with the limited
| space.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| Widespread adoption of these kind of products are a precursor to
| a big-brother dystopia. Given FB's reputation (and raison
| d'etre), it's plausible that these devices will become tools for
| purposes such as crowd-sourced sousveillance.
| binarynate wrote:
| An interesting review from Katie Notopoulos at Buzzfeed:
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/faceboo...
| mawise wrote:
| > The View app requires a Facebook account to log in
| ortusdux wrote:
| Standups have a strong incentive to keep their routines off
| youtube, so comedy venues use products like Yonder to secure
| phones at the door. Imagine needing to relinquish your
| prescription lenses because they have cameras built into them.
|
| https://www.overyondr.com/howitworks
| api wrote:
| Facebook wants me to wear a camera. That is a really hard "nope."
| azinman2 wrote:
| Sounds like you're not the target demo then.
| humaniania wrote:
| Ray-Ban is Luxottica and they have done a lot of not great stuff:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/09/10/meet-the-...
| Tenoke wrote:
| To be fair at least this is the first time where the pricetag
| on Luxoticca glasses makes sense.
| VRay wrote:
| yeah, except that I'm seeing similar devices on AliExpress
| for $10 to $50
| camillomiller wrote:
| Yeah this is basically like Exxon partnering with Nestle
| lunatuna wrote:
| When Clearly Contacts was bought out by Luxottica it was
| described to me as the Mafia coming in. Clearly Contacts had
| gotten too big to ignore and it was starting to impact their
| bottom line. Yes was the only answer, how much was
| negotiable.
|
| Rayban integrating with Facebook looks like the Mafia and
| Triads joining forces.
| VRay wrote:
| It's pretty wild
|
| People look at me like a madman when I try to explain that you
| can buy good-quality glasses for $7 online + $6 shipping (or
| ~$40 with all the coatings and fancy upgrades you could ever
| want)
|
| I just buy a sack of glasses every couple of years and then
| treat them with absolutely no respect whatsoever. My toddler
| loves to rip the glasses off my face and chew on them or use
| them as a club to beat on random objects around the house..
| This is not a problem for me. I popped the lenses out of a $7
| pair of glasses and strapped them into my VR headset. When I
| find an old scuffed-up pair of glasses, I just throw them in
| the trash.
|
| I wonder how many other parts of our society are a blatant scam
| without me knowing about it.. I know that the way people study
| English in Japan and Korea is a giant scam where they basically
| learn nothing, but I could only recognize that thanks to my
| outside perspective
| trashcan wrote:
| Where?
| AvesMerit wrote:
| I feel like a shill by saying this, but I get mine at
| zennioptical.com
| [deleted]
| vmoore wrote:
| Queue the Ray-Ban smartglasses spam links in my Facebook feed.
| jldl805 wrote:
| You have ads in your facebook feed? Weird, I'd assume someone
| who posts on HN and has an opinion on this would also know how
| to shut that down.
| haliskerbas wrote:
| I presume what the parent poster is referring to isn't ads
| but spam images posted by people whose accounts have been
| compromised. They promise huge discounts on ray ban sun
| glasses. I still haven't gotten my pair of $20 wayfarers!
| annadane wrote:
| Putting aside the whole "Facebook has something to do with this
| so I will dismiss it out of hand because blah blah blah evil
| company" I don't really see the point in smart glasses, though
| yeah I'm sure it has some uses
| awkward wrote:
| Google glass had this air of inevitability about it. The glasses
| were hyped to be the the next iphone. Not only that, but tech was
| going to create iphone-level product categories every 3-6 years.
|
| Then it completely fell flat. It just didn't cross the divide
| from enthusiasts to the wider culture at all. The term glasshole
| was invented. We all saw scoble in the shower.
|
| It might be that the culture's moved enough over the last decade
| that smart glasses will be a thing, as more people see social
| media success as aspirational. AR and VR give a value prop that
| wasn't there. Still, it seems like there's a big gap between the
| enthusiast market and the mainstream, and this release doesn't do
| much for that.
| [deleted]
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| I don't understand why companies keep making these glasses with
| cameras on them. That's the main issue and concern that people
| have with these devices.
|
| Something like a HUD would be great but people don't want cameras
| pointing at them all the time.
| sneak wrote:
| People in public spaces in the USA have cameras pointed at them
| all the time and they don't seem to care.
|
| Even local bars and restaurants that don't even handle that
| much cash have tons of surveillance cameras up everywhere.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| If I'm in a store and the store has a camera that I know will
| probably never be looked at, it's different from me being in
| a store with a camera that will be fed into some facial
| recognition system sold to advertisers that decides to charge
| me more for airline tickets a year later, which is also
| different from sitting across the bar from twenty people with
| cameraphones pointed at me. It's not a binary 'cares about
| cameras or doesn't.'
| taylorfinley wrote:
| You don't think all the cameras in big box stores are
| networked and monitored by AI? I would be shocked if
| they're not doing customer tracking. Notice the number of
| face-level cameras popping up in Wal-Mart, they even have
| them built in to the front doors at chest height so they
| can scan every face and then track what you're looking at
| as you peruse the shelves.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| An underrated point. All those security cameras represent
| an inexhaustible source of monetizable data that is
| currently going to waste.
|
| Right now there are too many retail security cameras for
| humans to monitor constantly, and too many shoppers to
| tag and track even if the data could be retained and
| processed. But both of these problems are well on their
| way to being solved.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I certainly didn't mean to imply that they aren't doing
| it. But I also don't like it, which was my intended
| statement. Especially so if they're sharing data about me
| specifically outside of their store, or if they're using
| it to charge me special prices.
| yur3i__ wrote:
| Surveillance cameras are entirely different, in the same way
| as people don't care about giving their data to a company but
| _do_ care about giving someone else their phone, a persons
| camera pointing at them is much different to a surveillance
| camera.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Reminds me of "Surveillance Camera Man" [1] from several
| years ago. His YouTube channel seems to have been scrubbed
| of videos, but basically the guy just stood out in public
| recording people, just like thousands of surveillance
| cameras currently do, with lots of subjects objecting,
| berating him, becoming scared, upset, even violent. Point
| being, it's no different than all the surveillance that is
| already done, except people freak out when there's an
| actual human visibly holding the camera.
|
| 1: https://blogs.harvard.edu/internetmonitor/2013/07/10/sur
| veil...
| snuser wrote:
| I've seen it a many times it's dumb stuff they have the money
| and talent to waste and a fear of being left behind.
|
| the leaders of these companies are also fairly uncreative
| leading them to blindly follow the current meme of "the future"
| which ironically leads to them faltering anyway
| habeebtc wrote:
| Indeed. These will be just an evolution of the previous glasses
| cameras which have been around for ages.
|
| Higher quality, and now with data collection.
|
| All I really want is a nice HUD which pairs with my phone via
| bluetooth to show content, and a low-effort way of navigating.
| No camera needed.
| de_keyboard wrote:
| The companies pushing them want to normalize having our every
| moment captured, logged and analyzed - on their platform.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Because people love taking photos, and this is pretty much the
| only kind of smart glasses that are technically possible at the
| moment.
|
| Yes I have used Glass. They sucked.
| DenverCode wrote:
| I would hate sitting across someone with them.
| humblepie wrote:
| They want young people walking around as face recognnition
| agents (eventually). Roaming as swarms that gather and submit
| data to the mothership.
| luckylion wrote:
| Have you seen the average teenage girl lately? They point
| cameras at themselves and others all the time, this would free
| their hands.
|
| I don't know whether it will be a success, but I don't think
| the crowd that doesn't want a camera pointed at them is a
| majority. For the record, I don't want a camera pointed at me.
| wheelinsupial wrote:
| Is this a generational thing? I've started using Instagram
| lately and I just can't understand how people who are
| doctors, lawyers, or dentists are posting content providing
| professional advice or tips and tricks one day and the next
| day it's videos of them doing yoga in thongs to sell
| underwear. There is the odd account where developers are
| posting similar content. Even elementary school teachers are
| twerking in videos in their classroom for likes.
|
| If the upcoming generation of developers and tech
| professionals no longer believe in a separation of personal
| and professional boundaries, will we see a complete
| elimination of boundaries and privacy? Is the end goal to
| have the ability to directly tap into what others are seeing
| on demand in their most intimate interactions. Something
| similar to the TV adaption of Brave New World? (I haven't
| read the book, so I don't know if this is true to the
| original.) As far as I know, Facebook photos and accounts are
| private, or that's what it appears people tend to send the
| accounts to, but Instagram is all about leaving an account
| open, so they can get influencer collaboration bucks.
| wtetzner wrote:
| I don't know if it would help them much. They want the camera
| pointed at themselves. I guess they could use them while
| looking in the mirror.
| helen___keller wrote:
| > Something like a HUD would be great but people don't want
| cameras pointing at them all the time.
|
| I really wanted this maybe 5-10 years ago, but personally I've
| reached a point in my life where I feel "less is more"
| regarding tech. Enough things want to send me notifications
| that I know it would be as worthless as my email feed, or my
| phone notifications feed, or my facebook feed, or any of the
| other feeds out there that have become sources of noise.
| nine_k wrote:
| Notifications are not the important case for the HUD.
|
| Other things are. Maps which track your location and show you
| the way overlaid on the streets and roads you see. Books and
| manuals which you don't need to hold in your hands. Video
| instructions that track your hands and correct their
| position. Finding stuff in a warehouse or in your closet by
| pointing at it right in your FOV. Heart rate monitor, etc
| right before your eyes when you are performing your hardest
| and can't lift your smartwatch to your eyes.
|
| Many good uses with broad markets. Sadly, it's technically
| too difficult, so it's too expensive for non-professional
| use.
| [deleted]
| silisili wrote:
| Yup. I don't get the argument 'well every store already records
| you.' Well, that's different, I'm in their store. If I let
| people into my home, or go to the urinal, I have an expectation
| of privacy unless the guy next to me is pointing his phone down
| or camera down awkwardly. With glasses, I don't know who is
| recording what or when.
|
| This isn't a 'i dont want people to watch me pee' argument,
| that was just an example. I don't want to be recorded when I
| have an expectation of privacy - full stop.
| rudasn wrote:
| I can think of many professionals who would likely pay good
| money to have smart glasses.
|
| - Mechanics who can see under the car and identify components
| and potential issues with those components. - Logistics
| handlers who can look at a package and know where it goes next,
| or people who scan QR and barcode codes all day - Construction
| workers who can measure distances, see wind speed, temperature,
| etc
|
| In other words, there is good use for this tech while avoiding
| all together any privacy concerns, as you are looking and
| analysing objects, not people.
| asdff wrote:
| In practice can this tech even do that? according the article
| this is just a 5mp camera on a set of frames meant for taking
| pictures and stories. To do some of the stuff you mentioned
| (like measuring distance) you'd need lidar, since
| construction workers currently are starting to use lidar and
| this is the new standard. What something like the iphone can
| do today in terms of measuring is not that accurate in my
| experience, certainly no good for commercial construction
| where lasers have been a thing for decades. Smart helmet
| seems like a better bet since you can shove a ton of sensors
| in there and have the lidar spinning on top of your head.
| throwaway2016a wrote:
| With Google Glass the HUD was not as useful as it seemed it
| would be. I think smart watches are a much better idea. More
| pixels and nothing on your face all day.
|
| Though, with that said, some people I know tried it on and the
| HUD was easier to use. A lot depended, I think, on the shape of
| your face. The way my nose and eye sockets and ears are I had
| to look up with my eyes at an uncomfortable angle to see the
| full HUD.
|
| Maybe they fixed it since V1.
| warning26 wrote:
| The biggest problem with Google Glass's HUD, IMO, was the
| lack of true augmented reality features like object tracking
| and recognition.
|
| Without that, it really ended up just being a tiny smartwatch
| screen that is in the corner of your vision instead of on
| your wrist.
| jackson1442 wrote:
| I think if it's "actual" glasses, unlike the Google Glass, an
| HUD could be incredibly useful since you have the entire
| vision field to play with. Bonus points for that since many
| people wear normal glasses anyways (me included).
| crorella wrote:
| > "Weighing just a teaspoon of salt more" why not just say the
| glasses are 5 grams more?
|
| I like that there is a light signaling the glasses are capturing
| photo/video, although it might not be noticeable in some cases,
| just like other devices
|
| Cool to see the pictures/videos don't go directly to FB.
| akomtu wrote:
| I'm sure the FB's plan is to see everything you see, analyse
| faces and places and build a better personal profile of its
| users. These glasses will be connected to network and linked to
| your real identity, or there's nothing in it for FB.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Don't go directly to FB... yet.
|
| FB always launches things in a better state then errodes
| privacy and user value to tilt towards more data collection.
| Darmody wrote:
| That's the thing with Facebook. They want it all and if they
| can't get it now they will try again the next day until you
| give up.
| httpsterio wrote:
| I was just thinking that if these are going to be used by
| perverts, its going to be trivia to paint over the light with
| something like nail polish. At least a proper audio cue like
| the camera snap noise which has been forced on at least in
| Japan, would be a bit better.
| httpsterio wrote:
| Clarification, its not in the Japanese law but all phone
| manufacteurs have agree upon it together.
| sneak wrote:
| What stops one from defecting and building one without?
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Decency.
|
| ...and the certainty that a law will then be passed
| within a year. Also you're no longer getting government
| contracts.
| thesausageking wrote:
| > Cool to see the pictures/videos don't go directly to FB.
|
| Yet. They also said you'd never need a FB account to use
| Oculus. Or that Whatsapp data would be kept separate.
| 0des wrote:
| Absolutely not.
| blocked_again wrote:
| Over the years I have become very mindful of what tech I choose
| to adopt. Which means I first encounter a problem and then try to
| find a solution for it using tech. I can't think of any
| worthwhile problem that this smart glass will solve. So I am
| going to pass on it.
| throwaway2016a wrote:
| I had a pair of Google Glasses when they first came out in beta.
| Looking at the HUD was a bit of a strain but these look like they
| don't even have a HUD.
|
| Plus the privacy concerns and the "glasshole" nickname.
|
| I see that there is an activity indicator LED (just like there
| was with Google Glass) but even the article admits there will
| likely be nonconsensual candid photo taking.
|
| Which raises the question: Did things really change that much
| about how people perceive privacy since 2013 that now no one
| cares?
|
| I'm happy with with smart watches at this point. I'm not
| convinced smart devises were meant to be attached to our head.
| durnygbur wrote:
| The glasses of the future with camera(s) and needing frequent
| recharging... yay!
| darod wrote:
| I"m curious as to how these will be received at U.S. ports of
| entry considering U.S. Customs and Border Protection's policy and
| practice of prohibiting the use of cameras and video recorders.
| Will they take people's prescription glasses away?
| [deleted]
| lunatuna wrote:
| A bit childish, but this seems like it was built with PoV porn as
| the primary use case. Saves a hand. Likely good for creeps too.
|
| I can't figure out who else would be using it. Good way to lose
| friends and make enemies. I wouldn't be hanging out with anyone
| with them on. Would stay away from any strangers with them on.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| POV porn seems like a pretty niche market for a mainstream
| company to target when they couldn't even host most of the
| content produced from this use.
|
| And why buy a $299 device when you could just buy a $5 headband
| mount for a phone or GoPro?
| standardUser wrote:
| "I wouldn't be hanging out with anyone with them on. Would stay
| away from any strangers with them on."
|
| I imagine a lot of people will choose to only cavort with
| people who have hidden audio recording devices, as opposed to
| visible video recording devices. At least until we all get used
| to this in 2-4 years.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| the-dude wrote:
| Apple will release the Apple Glasses when the time is right.
| Since Apple hasn't released the Apple Glasses, it is obvious the
| time is not yet right.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| That doesn't really seem to fly, as smartphones existed before
| the IPhone, but they were not done with the "no stylus" idea,
| thus not done correctly. When Apple does their best, they make
| the market by just doing it better, and everyone follows.
| the-dude wrote:
| That's what I said.
| darkwater wrote:
| You are basically saying the same as GP
| snuser wrote:
| We really need laws banning devices like this before they become
| common place, Illinois at least has some laws regarding facial
| recognition it's probably a good starting point
| fudged71 wrote:
| I don't understand why these aren't programmed with rolling
| buffers like dashcams. Often I want to capture something that
| already happened, not something that is about to happen.
| asadlionpk wrote:
| exactly! I wish this had that feature.
| polartx wrote:
| Dash cams are wired to a car battery and often only record when
| the engine is running. If these glasses were constantly
| recording, the battery would last less than 60 minutes
| arnaudsm wrote:
| The reveal trailer is so dishonest, it shows environment-mapping
| AR features, while the glasses don't even have a display. Please
| calm down the creative department.
| jamespullar wrote:
| Posted earlier in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28471302
| xnx wrote:
| I'm probably in the minority, but I would like a record of
| everything I see and hear for my entire life. If every other
| private company gets to monitor me, why don't I? That said,
| Facebook is probably the very last company I would want to buy
| that kind of a device from.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| The objectionable part isn't you monitoring you, it's you
| monitoring everyone around you.
| xnx wrote:
| For sure this is a socially unusual thing to do now, but the
| same was thought about having Gmail "read" your email, or
| having an always-on Amazon microphone inside your home. I
| expect attitudes will be different about personal recording
| in 10 years.
| [deleted]
| fnord77 wrote:
| me too. every day when I go out for lunch I witness at least
| one crime, sometimes multiple crimes. At least one involving a
| gun per week.
|
| Nobody believes me how bad the crime has gotten here. I'd like
| to document it.
| Duralias wrote:
| Wouldn't that make you a target for any criminal who has
| heard of these glasses?
| reactspa wrote:
| Sorry to hear about this bad situation.
|
| A great benefit from having cameras everywhere (e.g. Ring),
| is the crime evidence aspect.
|
| May we ask what general area you live in?
| camillomiller wrote:
| You don't need smart glasses, you need drastic gun control
| laws.
| fnord77 wrote:
| SF already has the strictest in the nation!
| [deleted]
| sneak wrote:
| Great, more ways for parts of my life to get uploaded to Facebook
| against my will and without my consent.
|
| I hope wearers of these get the same stigma that the Google
| Glassholes did.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Creepshot types will be a big market for these.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Facebook has been helping to make being a creep seem normal
| and acceptable for a long time.
| sneak wrote:
| There are already countless easily concealed $20 cameras
| available for that, including ones in pens and, yes,
| sunglasses.
|
| This isn't enabling any new functionality there.
|
| The danger from these is the internet-connectedness, and
| Facebook.
| dclaw wrote:
| Death to facebook. No one really wants crap like this, and
| facebook needs to die like myspace.
| type0 wrote:
| FB as a company is already dead in their heart and soul, the
| world would be so much better without them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-09 23:01 UTC)