Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Is the misspelling of "reel" -> "real" in the first sentence a sign that this was written by a human or a trick to make me think it was written by a human? I think it is the former.by jsrozner
- So what exactly is patentable? There has been a lot of prior art on the topic.by ReptileMan
- You can create a patent that builds on other patents. You can make up all kinds of "what if" "inventions" and spend a lot of money acquiring patents for them, if you have the money to do this originally. Then it is a game of having the financing to "protect" those patents from infringers. If a corporation has more legal reserves than a patent holder, it can be a long drawn out legal battle where the corporation eventually wins, or the patent holder can just not fight and it ends there. This is the patent system.by bsenftner
- Hope lawyers eat him alive ... ZUCK IS PUBLIC ENEMY #1, PUBLIC PERVERT #1.
How many male users of these pervert glasses are secretly recording attractive women at gyms, at beaches, in scantily clad clothing wherever, so they can go back home and "spank the monkey"? Our taking the video clips and running it through ai to create nudy content ?
- FB in meat-space: see, for reference, page# 11 of the Meta's patent - https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...by alasr
- Portable Flock camera here we goby lapkaaaa
- Government agencies love this stuff. Everything that's illegal for them to do (just in case they still care), Meta does it for them.by classified
- 1786726184 | Meta Patents AI Glasses to Use Facial Recognition to Identify People | https://www.404media.co/meta-patents-ai-glasses-to-use-facia... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49301302
1786798199 | Meta Patents AI Glasses to Use Facial Recognition to Identify People | https://www.404media.co/meta-patents-ai-glasses-to-use-facia... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49310153
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOnQ8CD3v4g
Person of Interest (2011)
- That series was prescient.by classified
- in the future, everyone's glasses will have automatic recording of people.
in the future, everyone's automatic recording of people will be fully accessible to all.
in the future, everyone's glasses will also be AR glasses, enabling everyone to view everyone else's POV at any time.
in the future there will be no privacy, because everyone will be able to watch everyone else.
by fouc - Fully accessible to all? Not when there's money to be made by putting it behind a paywall. Unless it's served with ads I guess.by cobertos
- thats a nightmare for privacy enthusiasts :/by globalnode
- But some are everyone-er than others.by classified
- >> in the future there will be no privacy, because everyone will be able to watch everyone else.
"Mark Zuckerberg spends $30 million on four homes to ensure privacy" - https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/mark-zuckerberg-spends-...
- Luckily, the future isn't set in stone. I see a ton of skepticism towards this surveillance tech.by Tepix
- In this future you describe, you forgot the key feature: that "everyone" is not really "everyone", because if you are not an individual in the system with all this augmentation, you are "no one" and effectively cut out of the economy. so, sure "everyone" will have this, because society will create an environment where the tech have nots are treated as if they do not exist.by bsenftner
- Yes, but also no.
A longer argument can be put here: https://www.secretbatcave.co.uk/software/we-need-to-talk-abo...
Its perfectly possible that AR glasses could be _more_ privacy preserving than mobile phones. THe problem is, either the market needs to make it financially advantageous to be privacy preserving (yes I can hear the laughing from here) or the legal mechanism by which the end user can request damages from either the user of the glasses, or the maker ofthe glasses, or both.
by KaiserPro - These patents are completely worthless. These glasses will never become socially acceptable and certainly not when they're coming from Meta, a known privacy thrasher/intruder/molester/rapist/violator.by hn_submit
- As much as I want this to be true, tech not being socially acceptable has not been much of a barrier in the past. At least not in the US.
At best adoption is delayed a while until the marketing department figures out a strategy that is more palatable.
by sudonem - Things have become normalized which just a decade ago would have been thought to never be socially acceptable. Frame it differently, make things convenient and offer something "for free" and everybody around you will forget their concerns, if they ever had any.by teiferer
- All they have to do is create a new child company with the same tech (new name new trust) and give the glasses away for free if capturing the data is more valuable than the hardware sales. People don't have the time or energy to research every single company and product they want to buy so corporations (and politicians) take advantage of this.by phyzix5761
- saw an ad today for some ear pieces that look like audio speakers but theyre actually cameras as well, so it seems manufacturers realise glasses will annoy people but arent giving up.by globalnode
- Unfortunately, they don’t have to be very successful to have an impact. Even just their introduction to the marketplace normalizes the concept, just a bit. Google Glass failed and so have other camera-equipped glasses, but notice that they keep popping up. Look how many companies have made them, and for how many years. Collectively, it’s moved the needle. I know someone who uses them regularly, mostly for recording rollercoaster rides, but that’s still plenty for a surveillance company.
Facial recognition is becoming common enough that it’s no longer very surprising if you’re in a crowded public space. Malls argue they need it to catch thieves, airports argue they need it to catch terrorists, and so on and so forth.
Privacy is like Humpty Dumpty, except he’s being poked to death.
by sholladay - There is a reason why they are partnering with Rayban; meta has no brand name it can use. Which is pretty wild, because every other big tech company has _some_ kind of brand a non trivial number of people — paying money — who would say something like: "I really need/want to use it every day because it is useful to me, my work would be severely hampered without it"(or some syntactical variation of that sentence with varying amounts of affection towards the brand)by ghm2199
- Not so long ago this was also the thought about mobile phones, now everyone is walking around with them so they can film/pic anyone all the time while 'faking' to be doing something else. If there is any convenience for people to be had, they will go for it. I think the convenience part over phones is just not there (yet). The experience is just not yet anything worthwhile / good / smooth so it's just lame, cringy and clunky, outside of filming. Maybe someone will make something that works, maybe it will be something completely different.
But if it gets a smartphone moment, no-one will talk about the privacy and the cameras anymore and that's why they keep trying.
by anonzzzies - Ten years ago people would have said the same about a lot of the surveillance tech we have today: TVs that sell your viewing data, always on microphones that listen to everything in your house to send to big tech so you can easily set a timer, doorbells that record your neighbors house and upload everything to the police 24/7, etcby malfist
- Currently there's a massive, and understandable, backlash against the Meta/Ray-Ban glasses, but I can't understand how it's not absolutely destroying the Ray-Ban brand?
Influencers and stores are damaging their brands by selling or advertising the glasses, but Ray-Ban seems to go completely free.
I do wonder if we're just moving to shun people wearing glasses with heavy frames in the near future. The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway.
by mrweasel - >> "The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway."
What type of people is that? I am just a dad who has them and films his kids doing cute things without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors.
It's fine, it's Meta, suspicion is warranted, but I'm hoping it can be moderated and directed. People like me are kind of left out right now in what seems to be a runaway narrative.
P.S: Would love a suggestion that doesn't involve angrily telling parents to not take pictures of their kids as an alternative. It sucks that I have to explain that this will be happening anyway.
by pj_mukh - Penalty because it’s based on what people think when they see them. They don’t say Meta Raybands but just Meta glasses. If influential people were to start saying the former enough that it becomes then martins. Also is the question of do other Rayband glasses look like it. If this line is distinct enough than it won’t harm other lines since the visual association isn’t made.by Jcowell