Thread

1. 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.

         1. 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.

            1. 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bitsoffreedom.nl&#x2F;campagnes&#x2F;gluurbril&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bitsoffreedom.nl&#x2F;campagnes&#x2F;gluurbril&#x2F;)

               1. pj_mukh · 1790242881 · focus · HN ↗

                  Posted article has nothing on my data ending up in Kenya. If you mean it&#x27;ll be used by Meta Analytics, that&#x27;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&#x27;s regardless of whether it was filmed on Meta Glasses or a pocket camera.

                  1. 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&#x27;ve told you or what the law says they can and can&#x27;t do.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.