Thread

Meta takes down a critical video about meta AI Glasses after filming at Meta

632 points · 395 comments · pieterr

ElProlactin · 1790239566 · focus · HN ↗
This hypocrisy is not at all surprising. The modus operandi for these people has been rules for thee, but not for me for quite a while now.
1. Almondsetat · 1790240173 · focus · HN ↗
  Feel free to point out the hypochrisy. I'll remind you that sharing a video you took of someone without their consent is not the same as recording them and keeping the video strictly for yourself
  1. ElProlactin · 1790240915 · focus · HN ↗
    This person was not trespassing on Meta property and nothing indicates that he was harassing employees who refused to be interviewed. It is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to record people in public places.
    You don't need someone's consent to record in public, and if any of the employees objected to the publication of the recording, they could consult with an attorney about a portrait rights claim. Such a claim should be adjudicated by a court, not Facebook.
    And let's be clear about the context here: these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online, and they're also used to record all sorts of junk/nonsense ("pranks", pickup artist BS, etc.).
    Meta doesn't seem to have a problem with content recorded with these glasses being posted on its platforms, even when it's objectionable, because it's literally everywhere. The only problem here, obviously, was that he was recording Meta employees.
    pj_mukh · 1790241926 · focus · HN ↗
    "these types of glasses are used by "content creators" to do street interviews that are published online"
    This to me is wild. I use the glasses to film my kids and share it on private hard-drives with grandparents, that's it. It's wild to me that I can surreptitiously film someone on the street and publish it online for views, and the only recourse the person has, is to go to court? Seems insane.
    Why does Hollywood require a release but Youtube does not?
    EDIT: People are getting hung-up on my use case. But that's not the question posed here.
    expedition32 · 1790242388 · focus · HN ↗
    Wasn't all that long ago people posted pictures of their kids on social media. Someone is going to watch your 12 year old in a swimsuit.
    pj_mukh · 1790242639 · focus · HN ↗
    From my private hard-drive?
    And unless Meta want's to pay me $1000's in fines (pretty sure my videos are worth less to them), sharing with Meta analytics is opt-in.
    Lio · 1790245498 · focus · HN ↗
    If the whole publishing industry can't collect copyright violation fines from Meta what makes you think you can?
    sjamaan · 1790242687 · focus · HN ↗
    You might want to think twice about this. The videos from those glasses are uploaded and used for AI training, for which they are also reviewed by humans in Kenya, according to the explainer from Bits Of Freedom (with English subs, here: <a href="https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/campagnes/gluurbril/" rel="nofollow">https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/campagnes/gluurbril/)
    pj_mukh · 1790242881 · focus · HN ↗
    Posted article has nothing on my data ending up in Kenya. If you mean it'll be used by Meta Analytics, that's an opt-in feature (easy Fines in California if they violate this)
    I agree posting videos of people without their consent should be illegal, and I thought it was? Why does Hollywood require a release form but YouTube does not?
    But that's regardless of whether it was filmed on Meta Glasses or a pocket camera.
    piva00 · 1790243149 · focus · HN ↗
    Fines can be just a cost for the business of training AI if they deem it valuable enough. Is there any enforcement apart from fines?
    pj_mukh · 1790244898 · focus · HN ↗
    This would be an added fine, because its not just "oopsie I used your data for analytics when you didn't opt-in", it'll be "actually I went ahead and used it for other purposes too".
    As someone who trains AI for a living, the resultant fines are definitely not worth my data.
    ElProlactin · 1790247996 · focus · HN ↗
    You keep referring repeatedly to fines and how easy they are to collect in California, but a quick search indicates that, to date, Facebook has paid $0 in fines to California for CCPA violations.
    The biggest fine ever recorded for CCPA violations was against Disney, and it was for a paltry $2.75 million. Disney pulls in $2.75 million in revenue every ~10 mintues.
    The potential fines for these types of laws are basically considered a cost of doing business if they ever need to be paid, and pale in comparison to the revenue earned by monetizing user data.
    piva00 · 1790248994 · focus · HN ↗
    Meta pulls >100B USD in profits, an added fine of even a few hundreds millions USD could be worth it depending on cost-benefit.
    I asked what other enforcement mechanisms there could be since an added fine isn't really teeth-y enough unless it follows the EU model for privacy violations: initial fine and a requirement to change behaviour, no change in behaviour increases the fine up to 6% global revenue, and the fines will keep coming until the behaviour is changed.
    Perhaps for the company you work at it might not be worth it but we are talking about one of the most profitable companies in the history of mankind.
    pj_mukh · 1790250301 · focus · HN ↗
    Profitable companies still need to justify unit economics. And I know it's not believable in this particular forum but Meta doesn't operate on the "let's optimize pricing on breaking laws" principle.
    Given the marginal value of my data to training anything (near zero), the lawsuit costs (even if I personally don't see any of the money) is far too large. I am not saying they definitely won't do it, they've bumbled into worse situations before but this feels like an obvious own goal if they try.
    latexr · 1790243612 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you mean it'll be used by Meta Analytics, that's an opt-in feature (easy Fines in California if they violate this)
    And, as we all know, tech companies and especially Meta never ever lie or trick you. They were never caught red handed sharing your information and violating your privacy despite claiming the opposite. They also are never fined because they are so careful, and the fines and consequences are always big enough to make them clean up their act.
    Oh, wait, for a moment I forgot about the past two decades.
    kelnos · 1790244842 · focus · HN ↗
    It is bizarre to me that you think Meta will be a good steward of your data, regardless of what they've told you or what the law says they can and can't do.
    GrinningFool · 1790250384 · focus · HN ↗
    > Posted article has nothing on my data ending up in Kenya.
    Did you think they were making it up? <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q33nvj0qpo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q33nvj0qpo
    I couldn't conceive of a world in which I'd provide meta with video of my family. Or... anything, really.
    pj_mukh · 1790251497 · focus · HN ↗
    Bit of a Gish galloping happening here. None of the content/video mentioned in these articles are shown to be non-consensually shared (which is the wink wink suggestion here). I have no doubt Meta has contractors world wide
    Meta's pretty explicit about asking for opt-in and laying out exactly how your videos are used as part of onboarding.
    GrinningFool · 1790345613 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it's a matter of trust. How many times has Meta proven untrustworthy over the years? Do we have reason other than their pinky-promise -- backed by the potential for nuisance fines and lawsuits -- to assume they should get it now?
    shevy-java · 1790243165 · focus · HN ↗
    Some auditors in the USA did that already. I was surprised to see that, since here in Europe, people have a much more negative view of Facebook's spyglasses. I think it is similar to getting money from Facebook directly, just as other "sports" people do product placement, such as for Red Bull (Dom Tomato; and many in the bboying scene). I find this annoying to no ends, but money convinces people. My problem is that I am not interested in ads and no "argument" can convince me otherwise. Since I am not interested in ads, I don't watch it and I don't buy from such companies. It places some restrictions onto me, since many companies advertise, in particular the big ones, but it also means I get to know smaller companies better. (Sometimes there is a de-facto monopoly, so I can not always avoid all companies and their ads; in particular for things you really need, such as food and so forth.)
    > the only recourse the person has, is to go to court
    Well, typically, if you are in public, you can do just about anything with regards to recording. In private the laws are a bit different. Either way it is a barrier.
    Lio · 1790245212 · focus · HN ↗
    Not just their grandparents, the chances are that Meta is processing those videos you take of your kids too even when they say they aren't.
    They've played fast and loose with copyrighted material for years, as shown in court records.
    They company was founded on the principle of breaking privacy law, as highlighted in Zuckerberg's famous Dumb Fucks conversation.
    Meta does what Meta can get away with and you really can't do anything about it without exceptionally deep pockets.
    The publishing industry has more money than you do and they failed too.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.