We really need a disability exception for things like this.

Meta Glasses are a hit in the blind community (for obvious reasons). Things will really come to a head when we finally get working face recognition tech.

I wonder if this law could be challenged on ADA reasonable accommodation grounds.

▲

siruwastaken 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Is this from the standpoint if a defendant in a court case being allowed to wear smartglasses or in general any visitor having that privilege. Because in general it seems that the restrictions on video cameras imposed in court rooms should simply extend to smartglasses as well. Just because it is in the form of glasses shouldn't suddenly make taking video cameras everywhere acceptable. And I fear to think that there could be a backdoor added to the software that shares all the videos with Meta.

▲

HWR_14 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, we really need blind assistance devices that don't store data and process it locally.

Those devices are already not banned.

▲

miki123211 3 days ago | parent [-]

Local models just aren't good enough for this. Not in a device that has to be energy-efficient, fit in a pocket and conserve its storage for other things the user may want to do with it.

Unless you have a homelab (which is just cloud under a different name), there's no way of doing a reasonable job here without sending your data to a third party.

In this case, preserving privacy and anti-discrimination are goals that you just can't reconcile.

	▲	HWR_14 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		What use case can't be accomplished by a local model. They can read things out loud and identify what you're about to walk into.