Thread

1. diego_moita · 1790254410 · focus · HN ↗

   All over the US people are freaking out about Flock cameras and that's justified.

   Meanwhile, these Meta glasses are far more ubiquitous, far more intrusive, being sold all over the world (not only the US) and their images have a lot less oversight than Flock's. And I don't need to tell anyone how irresponsible Meta is with other people's privacy.

   And, yet, very few make a scandal about it.

   1. ethagnawl · 1790257258 · focus · HN ↗

      > these Meta glasses are far more ubiquitous

      Huh? Not in my area. I've seen one pair of these in the wild and dozens of Flock cameras. Will that change? Maybe. For now, the _freak outs_ about Flock are absolutely justified.

      Their footprints are also completely different. I can't avoid Flock cameras unless I want to change my path of travel and take back roads, which costs me time and money. Whereas I _might_ encounter someone wearing Meta glasses _if_ I happen to cross paths with them.

      1. bradlys · 1790260253 · focus · HN ↗

         Yeah, I also find it weird to make a comparison with a random private individual and/or corporation with an actor that has the monopoly on violence.

         The government doing surveillance is much much worse.

         And, ultimately, the issue here is that individuals are using these products in a bad way. Go to Japan and this shit is prolifically bad. Upskirt cameras on shoes and all this shit. Banning these glasses doesn't get rid of bad behaviors. Japan has been at the forefront of pervy invasive shit for decades.

         1. diego_moita · 1790272838 · focus · HN ↗

            In democracies, governments are accountable to their citizens.

            But I understand your concern, the U.S. hardly qualifies as a democracy.

            O.t.o.h, in the absent of stringent privacy laws (as the U.S. is an example), corporations are accountable just to stockholders.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.