Thread

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

632 points · 395 comments · pieterr

jimbo456 · 1790253899 · focus · HN ↗
We need to move beyond just banning these glasses - all smart glasses of all kinds - to breaking up these companies. Undo the acquisitions of Insta and Whatsapp - I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.
1. pc86 · 1790254657 · focus · HN ↗
  What does this have to do with WhatsApp?
  Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
  1. bamboozled · 1790254920 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the point is, it's been a good system, but it's out of control. It's not that people don't like people having money, it's people don't like the status quo of watching society and the world be destroyed by generating share holder value alone. We need a better system. Not saying that is communism or whatever, but the monopolies and corruption are off the charts.
  2. jmathai · 1790255027 · focus · HN ↗
    WhatsApp is definitely part of Meta's distribution and reach strategy. So it's very relevant.
    I don't think OP is trying to punish investors. I think they are saying the overall damage of letting these companies continue the current trend will be worse than the cost of unwinding it now.
    I'm an advocate of reformed legislation to enable this.
    shimman · 1790257031 · focus · HN ↗
    Why shouldn't we punish investors? This is the risk when you invest in these types of companies where regulation is nonexistent. It's not the job of the government to make sure rich shareholders stay green.
    mxkopy · 1790259339 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s absolutely insane to me how intro economics classes spout that capital takes on risks to implement new ideas while completely glossing over the political process of ensuring profit floors and guarantees under the “rent seeking” definition. Like, rent seeking seems to be the only goal of capital now.
    Egregious example:
    <a href="https://www.loevy.com/for-profit-prison/" rel="nofollow">https://www.loevy.com/for-profit-prison/
    parineum · 1790261196 · focus · HN ↗
    Public prisons have all of the same incentives to reduce costs and anything you should do to ensure public prisons are following minimum standards (regular inspections and regulations) can just as easily be applied to private prisons.
    The problem isn't the profit. The problem is the lack of accountability.
    shimman · 1790268096 · focus · HN ↗
    The profit motive introduces the lack of accountability because now they care about making money and not housing humans and providing dignity.
    parineum · 1790297732 · focus · HN ↗
    Politicians don't care about that either. They care about trying to balance the budget by cutting money from the places that people care about the least.
    shimman · 1790304314 · focus · HN ↗
    Politicians care about this around me, they even campaign and win on these issues. Try not to speak in absolutes
  3. Goronmon · 1790255207 · focus · HN ↗
    Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
    As much as you might like to defend the wealthy because the only thing you care about is money, regardless of the human cost, doesn't mean that we can't use the law and the government to limit the harm being done to humans.
    I know what you are going to say. "Fuck people! I only worship money!" but I think you need to look beyond just the financial aspects of this situation.
  4. smallmancontrov · 1790258434 · focus · HN ↗
    I know that shareholders just want monopolies and free money and don't want to compete for it, but we should make them. Like we did before Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork shot the kneecaps out of our antitrust law. It's not about punishing shareholders, it's about making them earn their keep. It's just good business.
  5. danny_codes · 1790263888 · focus · HN ↗
    The government can do whatever it wants. Laws are written by the government. We have a democracy. If enough votes exist to, say, pass a law banning drug dealing (like meta does), then the company will die.
    Simple as that
  6. alsetmusic · 1790339323 · focus · HN ↗
    > because you don't like people with money
    What a great way to flip a discussion on privacy. I'm so happy for your investments. I have investments, too. That didn't stop me from telling our financial advisor that I didn't want shares in specific evil companies, regardless of their profitability. Maybe that's because I have enough money to be selective about it, which apparently will earn your respect.
2. acd · 1790254799 · focus · HN ↗
  We should together stop calling devices which film in dressing / locker rooms smart.
  These devices record video & sound track serve Ads and do Data fusion
  What if you took a cam corder to a locker room? People would be upset, that is not allowed. That would not be nice. This is not nice either
  1. cogman10 · 1790255163 · focus · HN ↗
    Much like a cell phone, nobody would even really care if you brought a camcorder down so long as you aren't operating it (which is very obvious).
    What makes these things gross is that it's not obvious when someone is recording.
    b112 · 1790256887 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree we should do something in this instance, but with the speed of which things are changing? Eventually, this tech is going to be undetectable.
    "Oh no that's sci-fi and decades away", I really don't think so. I think neuralink, and competitors too, will next move on to reading the visual cortex. They already have plans to push data to the visual cortex, to enable the blind to "see", reading in healthy people seems quite doable.
    I expect something like this to happen before 2030.
    Regardless, I agree for now? Yes. But the future? I don't see it as blockable forever.
    There are two ways we decide how severe the punishment for broken laws is. One is to enable just punishment. The other is deterrent. This may fall into "deterrent is the bigger part of the sentence", where people posting private information receive years in jail as a result.
    There is a little bit of a conversation about this here:
    <a href="https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii/p6.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii...
    And the above certainly covers Meta glasses too.
    I think it won't be long before it's the posting of non-consensual imagery that is so criminal, that few will do so. For years in Quebec, sharing of images captured in public isn't really legit. You control "images of yourself", regardless of where they are taken, public places or not:
    <a href="https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-photos-and-videos-of-yourself/" rel="nofollow">https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...
    And they're so worried about problems with image sharing, they've almost automated the process to deal with it:
    <a href="https://www.quebec.ca/en/justice-and-civil-status/support-victims-crime/non-consensual-sharing-intimate-image" rel="nofollow">https://www.quebec.ca/en/justice-and-civil-status/support-vi...
    So this is already being criminalized in a lot of places.
    kshmir · 1790259187 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    pessimizer · 1790262336 · focus · HN ↗
    > Regardless, I agree for now? Yes. But the future? I don't see it as blockable forever.
    It's increasingly necessary not to allow guests to bring their devices into your house or establishment. Somebody should go into business doing courtesy phones, where you can switch your sim/esim at the door to a dumbphone owned by the business.
    When it comes to smart glasses, if they're prescription you had better have spares or you're going to be blind.
    Canada's censorship solutions are no solution; you can't stop people from doing things by cracking down on civil liberties, people will just ignore you and do it anyway. Then you're stuck chasing anonymity, now your entire society is totalitarian and everything is rooted. In order to fight the totalitarian surveillance and tracking instituted because you wouldn't tell some pervert to take his robot glasses off, the electorate makes MechaHitler your PM, and it's now in control of your surveillance system.
    It would be very funny if Skynet took over because people elected it, like Hitler did.
    b112 · 1790273027 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not censorship to be in control of your own likeness. And having laws which are easy to call upon is part of justice being served. In the Quebec example, someone posting something about you is as easy as 'take that down' then 'police are called if you disobey the court', which is really how courts have always worked everywhere around the world.
    The US has a crazier takedown regime, letting companies do this. At least in Canada it goes through a court, it's about your personal likeness, and you can contest it.
    order-matters · 1790265749 · focus · HN ↗
    >to enable the blind to "see"
    Please watch this ad to enable 5 minutes of premium color vision!
    ben_w · 1790269041 · focus · HN ↗
    > "Oh no that's sci-fi and decades away", I really don't think so. I think neuralink, and competitors too, will next move on to reading the visual cortex. They already have plans to push data to the visual cortex, to enable the blind to "see", reading in healthy people seems quite doable.
    > I expect something like this to happen before 2030.
    I think 2030 is too early for that, medical tech is slower than most people expect. What may happen by then is (more) retinal implants connected to external cameras, as the early tests of that kind of thing are now well into the past and early models were actually authorised: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis
    The non-medical surveillance risk is higher. The smallest camera (as of 6 years ago) was already small enough to be easily missed amongst makeup sparkles if you were so inclined: <a href="https://originalpricing.com/ov6948-medical-camera-sensor/" rel="nofollow">https://originalpricing.com/ov6948-medical-camera-sensor/
    Low resolution? Sure. Expensive, too. But I can easily see this being embedded in someone's nail lacquer, or eyelashes.
    There have been hidden cameras of various kinds for a lot longer than that, hidden in buttons etc.
    Between this and how easy it is to use AI to fake a picture of anyone you choose, anywhere you choose, doing anything you choose… I have absolutely no idea what will happen to consensus reality and shared social norms next year, let alone by 2030.
    b112 · 1790273292 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, the reality issue is big. This may be in fact the only thing which saves 'big' news. And it may be what kills all forms of social media posting.
    Some yahoo you don't know, posting a video of <thing happening> is useless without some degree of trust. So whether an established celeb on Youtube or actual media outlets, centralized reporting is going to become more of a thing.
    When I was a kid, pre-internet, pre-camera, 'rumours' could be devastating, and were often wildly made up. Yet there was always this category of people who simple could not get through their head, that simply because someone hears something, it isn't therefore true.
    This category of people still exists. And I think they'll be most hit by this.
    nnutter · 1790256987 · focus · HN ↗
    Which Meta Glasses try to counter by making it obvious when someone is recording with the recording light; arguably more obvious than cell phones.
    Saline9515 · 1790258245 · focus · HN ↗
    They are designed to be easy to bypass. Plenty of tutorials exist online and I can't imagine that Meta engineers didn't know about it beforehand.
    nickthegreek · 1790258818 · focus · HN ↗
    Provide this 'easy' tutorial please.
    __s · 1790260277 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/4352861484/smart-glasses-led-camera-cover-blocker" rel="nofollow">https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/4352861484/smart-glasses-led...
    > Take control of your privacy with this easy-to-use LED and Camera Blocker
    nickthegreek · 1790260820 · focus · HN ↗
    That is a camera blocker. your camera will not work with that.
    QuantumNomad_ · 1790262967 · focus · HN ↗
    Read the product description:
    > Designed for users who value discretion, this accessory covers the video recording LED and optionally blocks the front-facing camera — perfect for content creators, streamers, or anyone in sensitive environments.
    There is two parts, one to block the LED, and an option to al part to block the camera.
    nickthegreek · 1790267288 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah, well that wont work. If you block the LED, the camera doesnt work.
    nvme0n1p1 · 1790269024 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-bypass-the-meta-glasses-anti-creep-feature/" rel="nofollow">https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
    Saline9515 · 1790343039 · focus · HN ↗
    Search for "meta glasses led bypass" on youtube.
    <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bAw1ybPuzPk" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bAw1ybPuzPk
    AlecSchueler · 1790258272 · focus · HN ↗
    And the next generation of "smart glasses" made by companies that aren't so reliant on public image will just forgo this entirely voluntary nicety.
    DamnInteresting · 1790258805 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a technology that can hide an LED light, it is called "a small piece of tape."
    flumes_whims_ · 1790262120 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know how effective it or how it works but Meta says they disable recording if the recording light is blocked.
    <a href="https://9to5google.com/2026/07/07/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses-privacy-light-camera-update/" rel="nofollow">https://9to5google.com/2026/07/07/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses...
    Tempest1981 · 1790264458 · focus · HN ↗
    And someone quickly hacked around it:
    <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-bypass-the-meta-glasses-anti-creep-feature/" rel="nofollow">https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
    ethbr1 · 1790268654 · focus · HN ↗
    The idea that Meta gives any serious shits about anyone's privacy or well-being when it's in opposition to their revenue is laughable.
    The $17b settlement they just agreed to said as much.
    hamburga · 1790260227 · focus · HN ↗
    > As he films them from multiple angles, the predominantly English-speaking employees ask the presenter questions such as, "What are you doing?" and "Are you filming me right now?"
    Meta employees themselves couldn't tell if he was recording!
    randallsquared · 1790263972 · focus · HN ↗
    This is the non-confrontational way to say, "I know you are recording". It allows a quick "Oh, sorry" if the person is willing to turn it off when confronted, without escalating to an actual confrontation.
    Tanjreeve · 1790263949 · focus · HN ↗
    You have to hold up a cell phone to film people with it. It's a very obvious action. Definitely not intentional in the design but it's an accidental feature.
  2. nnutter · 1790257070 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't like it but it's totally normal, especially for youth, to have their cell phones out in locker rooms. Targeting only glasses with this concern is largely out of touch with current behavior.
    ohrus · 1790257480 · focus · HN ↗
    That isn't normal and it's actively enforced against in gyms and pools where I live.
    Glasses are passively recording. Recording with a phone is active (for the most part). You need to take it out and point it at what you are recording...
    tuckerman · 1790258129 · focus · HN ↗
    > That isn't normal
    Every gym I've been to is full of people with phones out in the locker room, from cheap chain gyms to the nicer athletic club I currently go to. My experience is much closer to GP.
    > Glasses are passively recording
    All the smart glasses I know of have a light on when recording. My phone does not and can be much more discreet (subject to the fact that everyone has a phone out already).
    I agree that if a location is actively banning phone use patrons should absolutely also be asked to take off smart glasses.
    AlecSchueler · 1790258349 · focus · HN ↗
    > All the smart glasses I know of have a light on when recording.
    How long until someone differentiates themselves on the market by not having the light?
    tuckerman · 1790258813 · focus · HN ↗
    I would be surprised if those don't already exist, I hear stories in the news all the time about small hidden cameras places they shouldn't be. For a private space like the locker room I'm not sure what option there is besides laws making that illegal (I assume/hope that already is?). Someone dedicated already can get a much more discreet camera.
    For public spaces, at least where I am, there really isn't a legal expectation of privacy. I couldn't tell if someone was watching YouTube or filming me with their phone and I probably don't have any recourse anyway.
    myvoiceismypass · 1790259142 · focus · HN ↗
    People already sell services to disable the light.
    soylentcola · 1790259832 · focus · HN ↗
    Not to minimize Meta's push for these things, but there have been devices that do this for quite a while now. You can get tiny cameras hidden in pens, watches, glasses, and all sorts of other items.
    It's just that in the past, these were sold by janky companies selling them as spy/hidden cameras, not massive multinational data brokers like Meta.
    dns_snek · 1790335802 · focus · HN ↗
    > All the smart glasses I know of have a light on when recording.
    that light can be easily disabled
    <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/news/modders-can-remove-the-recording-light-from-metas-smart-glasses-for-a-price" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcmag.com/news/modders-can-remove-the-recording-...
    mrweasel · 1790263811 · focus · HN ↗
    My children's school have an interesting way of dealing with the ever growing list of devices they need a policy for. They borrowed the police term "data carrying devices" and wrote a policy based on that. When Metas glasses started to be come a problem no policy change was needed for the school, they were automatically covered.
    That's probably the best solution, deal with the functionality, not the device type.
  3. yellow_lead · 1790261935 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, they're spy glasses / perv glasses.
  4. boplicity · 1790267754 · focus · HN ↗
    They're basically Flock Cameras, except they could appear anywhere. Nobody wants mobile surveillance potentially brought into any room.
  5. abhinav_sk · 1790307878 · focus · HN ↗
    Are smartphones just phones now?
3. schnebbau · 1790255754 · focus · HN ↗
  > Undo the acquisitions of Insta and Whatsapp - I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.
  Yikes. I thought this was America.
  1. Insanity · 1790255944 · focus · HN ↗
    That sounds like “we’ve always done things this way and therefore will continue doing things this way”.
    Which is a great mindset if you want to ignore new information and avoid improving the status quo.
  2. malfist · 1790256174 · focus · HN ↗
    The US has laws against monopolies and trusts.
    smallmancontrov · 1790258539 · focus · HN ↗
    Those laws have been nerfed since the Ronald Reagan / Robert Bork / Consumer Welfare Standard takeover. We should un-nerf the anti-trust laws.
    Sindisil · 1790259051 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, and heck, on occasion we even enforce them.
    When we do, it can be pretty effective.
    I just wish we did so more frequently, and, more importantly, that the consumer welfare principle hadn't emerged as the prevalent antitrust standard.
4. howunfortunate · 1790257706 · focus · HN ↗
  > I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.
  "I have no empathy for the two-thirds of Americans who will lose their personal savings that they need to retire" really undermines your case.
  Edit: thoughtful tradeoffs against the stock market are reasonable. "I don't care" is not a carefully weighed tradeoff
  1. Saline9515 · 1790257920 · focus · HN ↗
    This line of argument ("think of the retirees!!!") could be used in many cases, however when is it acceptable to break companies for the greater (non-financial) good?
    On a parallel, can't we criticize any decision reducing the market cap of companies as an attack on the retirement portfolios? Say, if we required connected glasses to display a red light of more than x lumens when recording, would that be ok, even if it decreased Meta's market cap?
    howunfortunate · 1790258523 · focus · HN ↗
    > decision reducing the market cap of companies as an attack on the retirement portfolios
    Any decision that results in a long term net loss across the entire public economy? Yes.
    That's something that hurts a lot of people and that hurt should be carefully weighed against whatever the assumed benefit is. Sometimes that's worth it, sometimes it's not
    But it's never OK to just hand wave with "well I don't care about that class of people so screw them"
    And let's not move the goalposts. OPs proposal was a corporate breakup of massive scale, not a minimum lumens requirement.
    Saline9515 · 1790259097 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't, I would like to know the line of demarcation. Splitting Meta would have a very low effect on the economy as the services are individually profitable and would continue to be operated, without the all-knowing centralized database/24h Telescreen.
    At some point, similar to the camera/face recognition debate, it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.
    howunfortunate · 1790261662 · focus · HN ↗
    > Splitting Meta would have a very low effect on the economy
    That's...I'm not even sure how to respond to that. It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect. The scale would be historic.
    > it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.
    I fully agree with you! OP apparently doesn't, as he stated he does not care about half of the voices in that debate. That's what I'm taking issue with, not the proposal to break up Meta, which is, as you said, worth a debate!
    Supermancho · 1790263559 · focus · HN ↗
    > It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect.
    Like it did with Ma Bell (the effective telephone monopoly)? No. I'm pretty sure it would have the direct opposite (open frontier) effect. The direct steps to break up a company are well telegraphed to the market.
    Saline9515 · 1790343271 · focus · HN ↗
    Meta has at the moment also a massive direct effect as it is a monopoly on its advertising segment.
    The effect on economy I'm talking about is a functional one, ads and slop will continue to be served on your social network of choice. Second order like "bad vibes" will be forgotten in a month, a quarter at max and then hedge fund managers will move to something else.
  2. cj · 1790257943 · focus · HN ↗
    It's also possible that it would benefit those same people. It doesn't necessarily need to be expensive.
  3. toomuchtodo · 1790261995 · focus · HN ↗
    93% of equities are held by the top 10% of households. Most middle class wealth in the US is primary residence real estate. The stock market isn’t the economy. No one is entitled to wealth, nor it maintaining it's value.
    > As of 2022, about half of households with a worker age 55 and older had no retirement savings, and 32% had no retirement savings or a defined benefit plan.
    The scaremongering about equity values and your average person’s holdings and exposure is not grounded in facts and reality. It’s simply scaremongering.
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49357337">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49357337 (citations)
  4. bs7280 · 1790265427 · focus · HN ↗
    You just unknowingly pointed out the real problem - the system is setup so that we think we are in on it, but as a wise man said "It's a big club and you ain't in it".
    Also "lose their personal savings" is a hyperbolic bad faith argument. If anyone's entire net worth is put into Meta stock, they get whats coming. Second, 93% of the stock market is owned by 10% of the population. The average American has more to gain from holding companies accountable than letting them rape and pillage our society so the richest people can have even more money.
5. Hobadee · 1790263982 · focus · HN ↗
  Flat out banning a category of product because it is possible to use it for bad things is stupid. Thousands of people are killed by cars every year - should we ban them? (Being killed is far worse than being recorded naked in a locker room. Not saying the latter is great, but it's better than being dead)
  There are also potential good uses for this tech. As someone who can't remember anyone's name worth crap, I can't wait for smart glasses with facial recognition and a name tag that hovers over everyone. I'm sure there will be great benefit in industry, giving workers heads up displays of all manner of important information.
  Just like any new technology, there is equal potential for good and bad.
  1. NegativeLatency · 1790264188 · focus · HN ↗
    Plenty of precedent to regulate harmful technology and behavior:
    Cars are defacto illegal to operate in public. You must have a license to drive one.
    You can’t yell fire to scare people.
    You can’t buy a gun without some kind of check, or at all depending on location.
    Civilians can’t operate jet engines with a variable nozzle size.
    rootusrootus · 1790268200 · focus · HN ↗
    > Civilians can’t operate jet engines with a variable nozzle size.
    I cannot find any support for that. Variable nozzles are fairly rare (but not non-existent) on non-afterburning engines, and afterburning engines are fairly rare themselves (and sometimes restricted as part of demilitarization of a former military airframe), but both variable nozzles and afterburners are entirely legal for a civilian to own and operate.
    > You can’t buy a gun without some kind of check
    That comes with a caveat -- this only applies to retail sales. Over half of States do allow private purchases with no background check.
    Hobadee · 1790294283 · focus · HN ↗
    I never once said that there can't or shouldn't be any restrictions in place. By all means, put laws in place where recording video in a locker room is a felony, for example. I'm just saying that a blanket ban because it could be bad is extremely short-sighted.
  2. codedokode · 1790264667 · focus · HN ↗
    > I can't wait for smart glasses with facial recognition and a name tag that hovers over everyone.
    What stops you from using a notepad? I do not want my face uploaded to Facebook.
    toast0 · 1790268120 · focus · HN ↗
    People don't generally tolerate me sticking a nametag on them... And they certainly don't tend to wear it for future events where we are both present.
    A local only face recognizer with consent of the face owners would be pretty useful for me. Although it would require a lot of 'hey, I'm bad at faces and names, do you mind if I take a picture so baby skynet can help me out?'
    scottyah · 1790271407 · focus · HN ↗
    Would they ask the person to hold their name tag over their head, or just require everyone to tape it to their forehead?
  3. olyjohn · 1790269066 · focus · HN ↗
    How inauthentic. If you don't remember someone's name, just say so. Ask them again and try harder next time. If I see you with glasses on, and your eyeballs looking above my head I'm going to walk away from you.
    Hobadee · 1790294076 · focus · HN ↗
    That works the first 10 times or so I meet someone, but it starts getting awkward after that. (Wish I was exaggerating)
    63stack · 1790328151 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a problem you have to solve yourself, without relying on making facial scanning and profiling tech widespread.
    The simple solution is that you live with the small amount of awkwardness this generates.
    Shocka1 · 1790354906 · focus · HN ↗
    Practical advice from a non-social person that forgets names - make notes, even 15 seconds after you meet the person if possible. The name, along with a quick note about where you met them, a feature that stuck out about them, a conversation you had with them, etc. Another thing that helps if you are not great at socializing on the fly (like me), is having pre-planned conversation pieces for people you might meet at a venue, or on the elevator at work. This will help add to the notes. Dittys sometimes work - like if the person's name is Brian and they have long hair - "Long haired Brian". Sounds goofy, but it really does work. Then every time you see that person, you call them by their name to help make it stick.
    And if all fails, a "What up DUDE!" always works well too.
    Now if you have a brain issue or something, I understand. But as a normal, healthy person, if we aren't making even the smallest effort to remember names, even the non-important ones, then we are more than likely the problem hah!
6. fangspire · 1790267784 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
7. BeachView305 · 1790267815 · focus · HN ↗
  How fo you think we can go about this the politicians are not in our pocket
8. like_any_other · 1790271232 · focus · HN ↗
  > banning these glasses
  (Networked) surveillance cameras are just as problematic, but people don't notice them. Any ban should affect them too. I don't want to build a world where corporations and governments film and surveil us in public (or privately-owned public spaces, like malls, parking lots, etc.), but we're forbidden from doing the same.
9. gloosx · 1790271708 · focus · HN ↗
  We need to go further and ban mini camera module for raspberry pi zero. Imeagine someone can record you with this stuff...
10. rlewkov · 1790275706 · focus · HN ↗
  Is the issue with person A videoing person B that a) B doesn't know they're being filmed b) B knows it and doesn't like it c) something else. I think likely b) so now we get to is whether A's conduct legal. If A is located in a public place, e.g., a public sidewalk, they can legally film whatever they can see. They can do this using a phone, Meta glasses, a camera on a tripod, etc. For example, A could stand on the sidewalk in front of your your house and legally film you through an open window. Kinda creepy but not illegal.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.