Thread

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

632 points · 395 comments · pieterr

yread · 1790244366 · focus · HN ↗
If anyone wants to see the video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHKhYL3is5o
He did harass them a bit. I'm looking forward to Meta taking down all videos where someone is a bit harassed. Internet will be a much nicer place!
1. embedding-shape · 1790248932 · focus · HN ↗
  > He did harass them a bit.
  Maybe I'm too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He's asking Meta employees questions, doesn't seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn't exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn't there have to be some intimidation or humiliation or similar for it to be harassment? Or asking employees what they think of the products they develop and support is the harassment part?
  1. hyperpape · 1790249953 · focus · HN ↗
    I am just an American, but I live in Portugal and it is legally not allowed to film people in public without their consent (you also can't have a street facing surveillance camera like in the US). Moreover, people take this rule very seriously. If it appears that you are doing so, they will be visibly bothered (I know some kids who have had uncomfortable interactions because they weren't aware).
    I don't think blurring faces fully addresses that (though I'm not commenting on legality in Amsterdam).
    I can see the argument that this video is in the public interest (hey, I'm Americanese), but it does seem plausible some people would find it a violation of a norm.
    xeyownt · 1790250100 · focus · HN ↗
    Then I guess Meta glasses will be banned in Portugal.
    bennyelv · 1790252702 · focus · HN ↗
    Why? Cameras are not banned, filming without consent is.
    collingreen · 1790254634 · focus · HN ↗
    This is technically correct but also giving "guns don't kill people; people kill people" vibes from that NRA marketing/propaganda campaign.
    bennyelv · 1790255062 · focus · HN ↗
    Right but the debate here is about “my gun is good and your gun is bad” rather than the right of anybody to have gun.
    Cameras exist. This is a camera. All cameras have the same problems this one. So why are we debating about this camera vs that camera rather than whether cameras should be allowed.
    pamcake · 1790258214 · focus · HN ↗
    > All cameras have the same problems this one.
    My perfectly normal camera does not stream shit to Meta servers or any other cloud. It's in fact fully offline. So, no.
    Recording is one thing and sharing the same recording with a hostile foreign entity another.
    Legally, many places have strict ban on publishing photos/recordings without consent, while photographing itself is generally allowed in public spaces.
    This is before even getting into with issues of recordes d material being used as training material etc, which adds additional ethical and legal issues.
    bennyelv · 1790258665 · focus · HN ↗
    Yours might not, but what other people choose to do with their recordings is out of your control.
    You may have a specific issue with the fact that the media goes through meta’s services, but that’s not the point that is being made in this thread.
    All of the ethical and legal issues apply to all other cameras and camera footage too.
    _--__--__ · 1790280195 · focus · HN ↗
    Across most of the world it's pretty difficult to walk around a high traffic area without coming across someone using a smartphone to record their surroundings for FB Live or Instagram, and it's been that way since long before anyone had Meta glasses.
    vkou · 1790269294 · focus · HN ↗
    When you hold up a camera to record me, I can clearly tell that you are recording me.
    It is socially and in many cases legally forbidden to use cameras in many spaces.
    The fact that the use of a camera is obvious is what makes it possible to sanction their inappropriate uses. With this piece of shit, it's not possible to tell at a glance that it is not being used, so we have to always assume that it's recording feature is being used.
    The default usecase for it is socially and legally transgressive. That's what makes someone with a smartphone a normal person, while someone with these glasses an asshole.
    ---
    If I'm in a store or a coffee shop, and there's someone wearing these glasses in it, I'll do the exact same thing as I would to someone conspicuously filming me with a camera - I'll ask staff to make that person put them away, or throw them out. For the same reason, anyone with them is not welcome in my home, nor any other space I have control over, and any establishment that welcomes people wearing them will not get any business from me.
    bennyelv · 1790316204 · focus · HN ↗
    The premise here is that if someone wants to secretly record you, that it’s not possible or easy with a smartphone or some other kind of easily acquired camera. This unfortunately is completely wrong.
    If someone is motivated to secretly or inappropriately film, they will do so with whatever device they have. Having these glasses doesn’t tell you anything more about whether they’re that kind of person than the colour of their shirt.
    Whether you will notice is entirely context and situation dependent. In some cases the glasses would be hard to notice, in others the use of a phone would be hard to notice.
    So while your perspective that people who want to secretly film stuff should be unwelcome is quite reasonable, the test you apply to detect it is misdirected.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.