I have yet to see any of these creepy camera glasses Facebook (and a few other companies) are selling. One of the many benefits of living in Arctic Sweden, where people are reserved, keep their their distance, and try not to draw attention to themselves, is that new technology fads don’t really permeate society here. The odds of me spotting one of these creepy predator glasses in my remote town are incredibly slim, and to me, that’s a feature, not a bug.
Meanwhile, in places where these creepy things can actually be found in the wild, a backlash is thankfully growing.
Will Kujawa, a freelance video producer, said that he has been thinking about buying a pair of Meta glasses with prescription lenses to film behind the scenes content during his shoots, but the online backlash has given him second thoughts. He says he was “blown away by how mean some of the people were” in response to his social media posts about considering buying a pair.
“I saw all these comments about if you wear those glasses you’re basically a predator or a creep, and I was like, ‘oh, maybe it’s not a good idea to have those,'” he told Engadget. But he says he understands why people have concerns. “I didn’t really think that through all the way … there are a lot of times where it’s not appropriate to wear cameras on your face. And even though I would have no intention of do[ing] anything creepy with them, it didn’t even occur to me [that] other people just assume that automatically.”
↫ Karissa Bell at Engadget
I can maybe see a use for these things in specific professional environments, but even then, obviously not ones made by Facebook, one of the, if not the creepiest companies in technology history. If I were to see anyone out here in the real world using one these things, I, too, would automatically assume that the guy (statistically speaking) wearing them is a creep. I can only imagine what the people most often targeted by creepy men would think encountering some rando wearing these.
Clearly, these things should be made illegal outside of specific professional environments where they could potentially be useful. While it’s impossible to stop tools like these from making their way into the hands of creeps, it at least provides the justice system with a clear method of nailing them to the wall. They didn’t get Al Capone for any of his violent crimes – they nailed him for tax evasion.
While the reference to Al Capone is correct, you are writing creepy stuff sometimes, Let me understand that right: It does not matter to you what law was applied as long it serves taking down a creep (or whatever you consider one)?
Wow, are you seriously advocating the banning of these based on some sexist stereotype!?
Weird they’ve been getting a pass for the last year when the original Google Glass immediately triggered paranoid people into committing assault.
You can already record people on your smartphone pretending you’re doing anything else, so I think this is a bit too blown out of proportion, even if there are really creeps that will want to buy such tech for this purpose. And you can also buy these tiny hidden cameras as well…
But smart glasses are so interesting tech, that it definitely can have some amazing uses, and I think buying ones, at least after the public panic goes away.
“You can already record people on your smartphone pretending you’re doing anything else…”
Yes, but at least you have to have the phone out and in your hand. Smart glasses are worn constantly and it won’t be long before they are indistinguishable from standard glasses/sunglasses.
While I consider the comments of Thom about AI frequently exaggerated, I think this topic about Meta glasses is really an issue.
Some weeks ago I was reading the plans of META, including the glasses permanently on recording metadata (because data would hardly be legal) to be sent to META data-centers.
In front of such system I would feel like everything I do or say could be used to sell me something (in the best case) or would be part of a product for others.
But that is a completely different and much more reasonable line of argument.
And I agree, at least in the EU this should not and won’t fly for very good reasons.
I’d be willing to give Meta and Ray-Ban a pass on bad intentions if they would allow you to operate it privately, without requiring a Meta account.
Since they force you to keep an account, then their intention is not to empower users to film and photograph easily as the people in the article say they would like use it for, but rather to collect data and employ their customers as free employees performing data collection, mapping, etc, for them.
I find the idea awesome, but I’d never buy or approve someone near me to use it, on these grounds alone. I know the footage does not belong to the person filming only.
Society bans many things due to the potential of misuse. This should be one of them. Meta will never employ the appropriate number of poor souls to review the footage and act on complains timely.