• UnLocoPoco@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Wait…does this mean every time someone wearing a meta glass looked at me…rather its camera looked at me, meta stored my face for profiling purposes regardless of me being an user of meta Apps or not?? This is so messed up. Initially I thought that only friends of meta users used to get profiled via face recognition…wtf…but again it’s meta…violated multiple privacy laws and as such…so not a surprise tbh

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Meta deserves all the scrutiny and scorn it is getting for this terrible project. You know who else deserves scorn? Ray-ban. They hitched their brand to this bullshit and should be held just as accountable.

  • Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Listen Meta, all you have to do is make the technology free and available to everyone, prove you aren’t motivated by profit, use your vast wealth and resources to improve society, and be completely transparent with all your business interactions. Then you wouldn’t be getting all this hate

    • nullspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      All they needed to do was not be so scummy with people’s data and I think most would have been okay with the tradeoff. I would have bought one of their VR headsets if I didn’t think they were gonna scrape every aspect of its use and sell my gooning habits to advertisers.

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The starkest signal of the MAGAfication of Silicon Valley isn’t this fairly par-for-the-course spyware tech, but their public response.

    A short couple of years ago they would have downplayed the whole thing and peppered a few apologies in, but these days the standard response is attack, attack, attack. Call the journalist a liar, call the journal failing, no need for evidence on either, just as long as you keep attacking.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Meta’s Vice President of Communications Andy Stone complained that Wired waited until the fourth paragraph to note the facial recognition feature was “not enabled,” and doesn’t note until the 16th paragraph that the feature is exploratory.

    Why is the code pushes to the customer downloadable app of its an internal experiment.

    • corey931@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Yeah, it seems clear to me that they intented to enable it in the future. But of course the CEO left that out barking at someone else instead. “Experimental”, sure. Certainly wasn’t internal anymore. Hypocrite. Tech companies managed to shatter my trust in them. They gambled my customer loyalty away. Now, if I don’t like something, I switch. Byeee

  • zeezee@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    17 hours ago

    if the feature was “exploratory” why are they mad? you explored what the reaction would be by having the code behind a feature flag in prod and the response wasn’t good so you scrapped it? seems like you should be glad wired did you a solid by not having you waste engineering hours developing a feature nobody wanted.

    • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Oh, no. They didn’t scrap the code. It’s there, waiting to be deployed again with an obscured name once the dust settles a bit.

  • Kekzkrieger@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    17 hours ago

    When you see someone wearing those glasses, get your phone out and keep filming their face and what they do all the time. When they ask you what you do say you just keep it to yourself they can trust you.

    Only fair to put a mirror on themselves.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Or option B.

      Which is to punch them in the face. Which does tend to be effective, but also carries legal risk.

  • grainfed@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Thank goodness for the geeks who go exploring all the tech nooks and crannies to find interesting tech behaviour. We need you.

  • Tony Bark@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Mostly just mad they got caught.

    Smart Glasses: looks at Zuck “That’s him! That’s the criminal.”

  • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Why can’t a company do smart glasses with self-hostable or fully local processing?

    I’d love a pair but fuck streaming everything I see to a random dude in Nigeria

    • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Well for one thing, it’s creepy and the people around you don’t want to be passively recorded 24/7.

      Remember Google Glass? Its users were called “glassholes” for a reason.

    • cabillaud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Self-hosted doesn’t mean “look how nice I am”. When a piece of tech is shit, it’s shit whether it is self-hosted or not.

        • cabillaud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Are you a cybersecurity expert? Can you guarantee that the data you’ll collect with your secret agent glasses won’t end up in the open?

          • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Yes.

            Unless someone phyiscally breaks into my house and steals my server. Which would require a very targeted attack which again is WAAY out of scope in my (and everyone else’s) threat model

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Of course it is. But if I do it locally it’s just me, not some megacorps wage slaves looking at the data.

        Mostly my nerd brain would like to go “what is this plant” or “overlay all planes overhead to my screen” 😀

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          There are to separate issues here:

          • corporation gathering surveillance data on everyone
          • creeps filming women and children

          Even if it’s just for you it’s still creepy. You may not record people without consent but we don’t know that. All we see is a camera pointed at us.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        But I want a camera and a microphone.

        I just want to use my own hardware to analyse whatever they’re recording.