What are the reasonable and legitimate uses of smart glasses with cameras in that can record without the subject being aware?

▲

ClawsOnPaws 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am blind, and I could imagine several usecases which would make my life a lot easier by using glasses like this. But because of their reputation I will most likely never use them, and especially not in public. I'm already afraid enough people will think I'm recording them when I use my phone to get info about what's around me, definitely don't need to get punched in the face for wearing meta on my face.

Edit: Not that I would want Meta to get all that data anyway. But even if glasses exist which are more privacy conscious, I think Meta and Google Glass thoroughly ruined the reputation of any kind of wearable like this.

▲

voidUpdate 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I can imagine there are many use-cases for blind people, but I also think having some kind of visual indicator that "these glasses are recording" would be good, and I don't know what tools you use in public at the moment, but if you use, for example, a white cane, it might help people to understand "this person is using a camera for assistance". But yes, the fact that glasses manufacturers have already demonstrated they want to take every frame of data they can does sour their reputation

▲

wolvoleo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

They have such an indication already, an LED light on the other side of the frame.

Of course you have to be able to spot that. And trust that it really doesn't record when it's off (note that it simply may be covered by the user)

	▲	voidUpdate 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I seem to recall that when the snapchat glasses were a thing, they had a very bright an obvious ring of LEDs around the camera itself, that were bright enough to shine through a sticker placed over them. Sure, there are still ways to defeat that, but it makes it a bit harder. Also I just googled for what the light actually looks like when it's recording, and it's not even really that visible...

▲

2ndorderthought 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sorry you are dealing with the social repercussions of assistive technology. I really wish companies weren't so gross and that they did not endanger some of the advantages of advances like this by being gross

▲

checker 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A parent wanting to record a fleeting moment with their child without the potential distraction of pulling out a phone or other camera.

This alone doesn't outweigh all of the negative uses, but I would argue that it's reasonable and legitimate.

▲

0xcafecafe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have 2 kids in single digit ages (1 under 5). I bought meta gen 2 last month and I cannot describe how many sweet moments I have captured. My kid loves to sing while playing with dolls and stops as soon as I flip my phone out to record.

▲

throwway120385 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I hope you can appreciate that you're capturing this data for Meta and their contractors and that they have the capability of doing whatever they want with this data. My spouse and I ask everyone taking pictures of our kid to never post them to social media because Meta et. al. create a shadow profile using those pictures, and they can share those photos with contractors and with other people and we don't want a company like that to have my son's data without his 18-year-old self's consent.

	▲	vel0city 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I get this argument and largely agree with it in regards to these meta glasses. Its why I don't currently use them. But I'd like to have some smart glasses that do respect my privacy and offer this kind of functionality. Honestly, most of the things smart glasses do today are stuff I'd really like. Having my glasses just be the bone conduction headphones I often wear anyways? Check. Easy access to taking photos and short videos of life experiences? Love it. Integrated into the thing I'm often wearing on my head anyways? Perfect.

▲

bell-cot 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the "subject" is human, those seem rather few. Surgeries come to mind, though smart glasses would be more a convenience there. Maybe some psychiatric patients, where a doctor wants to review snippets of his interactions with lower-level staff or his family members? Law enforcement trying to record interactions between informants and targeted criminals - though the latter might wise up pretty quick. Security staff at some very-high-security facilities.

▲

OutOfHere 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I already noted it in the answer. If a person feels at risk, or even if they're on vacation, they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public, just as they could with a phone.

Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know.

There are dozens if not hundreds of cameras pointed at the street that record people every time they go out in public in any urban setting.

	▲	voidUpdate 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If someone is recording you on video with a smartphone, you are generally aware of it, because it has to be pointed at you. Sure, you have a right to record people in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, but I would quite like to know if you are recording me. I'm also not terribly worried about people recording me having sex or being naked in public without my knowledge...
	▲	pjc50 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public Subject to local law. It's an offence to make indecent images of children, for example. However, it is absolutely not the case that Meta has a right to that data, as a data controller under GDPR. > feels at risk This is a red flag phrase: it's a justification that people whip out for all sorts of unjustified things up to and including murder.
	▲	5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	close04 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Do you think you will know if someone has their phone in their pocket or in a holster, and is turned on and recording? You will never know. At least this says something about the intention. Someone who films with a hidden phone implicitly shows that they intentionally hid this from the people being filmed. Filming with glasses is hidden by design. It gives plausible deniability to the person filming, so they can film covertly but pretend they weren't hiding anything. In most cases this doesn't make a difference but there are some cases where the premeditation can make it worse for the person doing the "abusive" filming.
	▲	basisword 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		>> even if they're on vacation, they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public Big assumption here that the place you're on vacation doesn't have different laws. You may have absolutely no right to record "everything and everyone" around you.
	▲	Forgeties79 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Or are you new to how phones work? Ease off the gas