This kind of hyperbole is nonsense. It’s a camera, being compared to other cameras. If your point doesn’t stand without dubious analogy then it’s not a very good point.
The fact is that if you stood outside any company office, with a highly visible camera crew, and then asked people who were passing by whether they worked at that company, most of them would probably feel quite apprehensive.
They would also be apprehensive if there was no camera at all.
So what exactly is the point that is being made in this video? People are apprehensive when put into situations with other people where their intentions are not clear and there are signs that the intentions might be malicious. Very informative…
You can conclude by the fact that they hid a recording device into what looks like a normal pair of glasses as proof that the idea is to allow people to look like they're recording people without looking like they're recording people.
They could have made it much more effective - better optics, better microphones, better battery - but that would have made it extremely obvious.
1. You’ve inferred that the reason the glasses exist is to enable people to harass other people. That’s a very odd conclusion.
2. Where’s the without them knowing? Meta literally designed the hardware so that you do know that you’re being filmed, unlike almost every other camera on the market.
3. You haven’t managed to separate the decisions and accountability of an individual from the tool that they use to execute those decisions. This is a strange way to look at the world. It places inherent moral values into inanimate objects.
1. Whether what he did is considered "harassment" is debatable.
2. Because it looks like an everyday object and not a camera? If you design a necklace or hat that films people but displays a small light (which can easily be covered up), the vast majority of people will not know they are being filmed.
3. He went up to people in public and asked them questions. Filming their bodies and asking them to turn around was weird and inappropriate but demonstrates the point he is trying to make, which is that this is inherently a bad product that films people with a camera but it doesn't look like a camera, which people naturally find deceptive and creepy, and they don't want to be around it.
Right but if they stand near you and film you with a phone without directly interacting with you, it’s extremely difficult to notice that you’re being filmed.
If someone stands in front of you and interacts with you, firstly the camera in these glasses is not hidden and the glasses themselves are quite distinctive, and secondly, a light comes on exactly where you would be looking as you interact - next to their eyes.
On those two points, I’d argue that they’re exactly the same as phones or other cameras when it comes to being able to secretly record.
They’re nothing like glasses from spy novels, they’re extremely noticeable.
I would not call that "extremely noticeable". Perhaps it is extremely noticeable if you are familiar that a company makes normal looking glasses with cameras built in. But if you aren't, you might just assume that is some stylistic part of the glasses and not a tiny lens.
Right but the debate here is about “my gun is good and your gun is bad” rather than the right of anybody to have gun.
Cameras exist. This is a camera. All cameras have the same problems this one. So why are we debating about this camera vs that camera rather than whether cameras should be allowed.
My perfectly normal camera does not stream shit to Meta servers or any other cloud. It's in fact fully offline. So, no.
Recording is one thing and sharing the same recording with a hostile foreign entity another.
Legally, many places have strict ban on publishing photos/recordings without consent, while photographing itself is generally allowed in public spaces.
This is before even getting into with issues of recordes
d material being used as training material etc, which adds additional ethical and legal issues.
Across most of the world it's pretty difficult to walk around a high traffic area without coming across someone using a smartphone to record their surroundings for FB Live or Instagram, and it's been that way since long before anyone had Meta glasses.
When you hold up a camera to record me, I can clearly tell that you are recording me.
It is socially and in many cases legally forbidden to use cameras in many spaces.
The fact that the use of a camera is obvious is what makes it possible to sanction their inappropriate uses. With this piece of shit, it's not possible to tell at a glance that it is not being used, so we have to always assume that it's recording feature is being used.
The default usecase for it is socially and legally transgressive. That's what makes someone with a smartphone a normal person, while someone with these glasses an asshole.
---
If I'm in a store or a coffee shop, and there's someone wearing these glasses in it, I'll do the exact same thing as I would to someone conspicuously filming me with a camera - I'll ask staff to make that person put them away, or throw them out. For the same reason, anyone with them is not welcome in my home, nor any other space I have control over, and any establishment that welcomes people wearing them will not get any business from me.
The premise here is that if someone wants to secretly record you, that it’s not possible or easy with a smartphone or some other kind of easily acquired camera. This unfortunately is completely wrong.
If someone is motivated to secretly or inappropriately film, they will do so with whatever device they have. Having these glasses doesn’t tell you anything more about whether they’re that kind of person than the colour of their shirt.
Whether you will notice is entirely context and situation dependent. In some cases the glasses would be hard to notice, in others the use of a phone would be hard to notice.
So while your perspective that people who want to secretly film stuff should be unwelcome is quite reasonable, the test you apply to detect it is misdirected.
Yes your comment is incorrect.
It’s completely free of the nuance and real moral debate that needs to be had and adds nothing interesting to the discussion.
How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?
If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.
Disagree. It’s very context dependent which would be more noticeable.
Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.
It has happened to me actually with the snap spectacle things.
Idk why we’re acting like people are hysterical the dangers of always on displays and cameras versus phones that go in pockets have been debated for over a decade now with Google glass. People do not like it for legitimate reasons.
Why is it smaller in volume? Sure that’s the decision of the person and has nothing to do with the device?
When phones first had cameras, and people were not aware, it would have been easier to secretly film. But news flash, where I’m sitting right now in a cafe full of tech workers, nobody would notice if I started secretly filming on my phone.
If I wanted to secretly film, I’d be more confident of getting away with it using my phone than with a set of glasses which have a flashing light on them.
The fact is that if you stood outside any company office, with a highly visible camera crew, and then asked people who were passing by whether they worked at that company, most of them would probably feel quite apprehensive.
They would also be apprehensive if there was no camera at all.
So what exactly is the point that is being made in this video? People are apprehensive when put into situations with other people where their intentions are not clear and there are signs that the intentions might be malicious. Very informative…