You liberty is worth nothing. You could hold a camera in your hands. Get a go-pro that records locally, or choose any other option. But nope, you're hoping you can record your child, put their faces in a recognition database associate precise location data, and then hope that Meta does not use this data in ways you don't approve of. (or merely sell it to an endless string of data brokers)

▲

pj_mukh 2 days ago | parent [-]

"put their faces in a recognition database"

Just so we're clear and can read past the headlines. This database doesn't exist and there has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists. And I would obviously dump the ray bans if this was actually a thing.

▲

ben_w 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Facebook itself is such a database, is it not?

I mean, it's literally in the name?

▲

pj_mukh 2 days ago | parent [-]

There is no Rayban data in Facebook. There is no connection and no way to use one with the other (other than voluntarily posting your own video to FB/Insta)

▲

rangerelf 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You're arguing really really hard in favor of Meta Raybans, even to the point of coming up with excuses and false analogies. It's almost like you're arguing in bad faith and claiming ignorance of Meta's bad faith implementation of all the surveillance features they've been pushing.

Why?

Given Meta's history of disregarding everyone who's not Zuck (and him being a sociopath), why give them the benefit of any kind of doubt? Right now, everyone should assume malice as the first explanation, and then accept that maybe there was some ineptitude once evidence appears.

▲

ben_w 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> other than voluntarily posting your own video to FB/Insta

So, nothing except the main sales pitch then?

> There is no Rayban data in Facebook

There is no war in Ba Sing Se?

▲

pj_mukh 2 days ago | parent [-]

Is the claim that meta uses publicly posted videos as a source for ads? The meta glasses are irrelevant to that fact.

I’d be happy to join some kind of rage-off at metas general practices but my claim was specifically just about the glasses data

▲

ben_w 2 days ago | parent [-]

The database is literally Facebook, you upload a picture or video and there it is, on the database, which is Facebook itself, that's why it's called "Face" book: because it is a database of Faces named after an actual book of photos of faces.

The Meta glasses, like everything Meta does, is marketed as a tool for interacting with Meta's services. Including Facebook.

	▲	pj_mukh 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		“There has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists.” This was my only claim. Which remains true. Videos off of the glasses voluntarily posted on FB is no different than iPhone videos posted on FB so it has nothing to do with the glasses themselves. If your claim is “posting videos in FB is a bad idea”, I agree, I don’t do that but again, that has nothing to do with the glasses either. It doesn’t make posting easier or force me to opt-out of automatically posting or anything silly like that And you can’t do any “facial recognition” against Facebook either. I’m glad meta figured out that was a pointless bad idea.

▲

codeduck 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Doesn't it?

The technology exists to build it. The pipelines exist to populate it. The marketing engine exists to leverage it for targeted delivery of content.

And yet, somehow, nobody's built it?

How sure are you of that?

▲

pj_mukh 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

How would it be monetized? And if it has been, where can I buy this? And if you can't doesn't that make you question your assumptions?

	▲	ben_w 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> How would it be monetized? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook > And if it has been, where can I buy this? Depending on your preference: their advertising portal, or a stock broker.

▲

r_lee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

and the technology exists to spy on everything you do in every single way, ignore gdpr, ignore all kinds of privacy acts, in fact you can also stalk people and find out where they live and break into their homes and look through their stuff and plant hidden cameras and other fun stuff

you can do that, but you have no clue as to why people/companies don't tend to do those things?

▲

john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-]

it is sort of funny that most of your examples of things companies "tend not to do" end up on the news fairly regularly.

big tech ignoring gdpr, ignoring or working around privacy protections, their technology being easily abused for stalking or harassment with no effort put into curtailing bad behavior, location data being bought and sold, etc.

i think the only thing from your list i haven't seen in the news in the last couple of months is employees of big tech doing break & enters.

(and this is all before we even approach the topic of data breaches!)

	▲	r_lee a day ago \| parent [-]
		they still don't just completely ignore regulations, like do we really think they just don't apply to them? we're talking about meta supposedly using facial recognition on the glasses to build a master database of faces or something like if I was Zuckerberg I would not want to do that, it would lead to a congressional hearing and all kinds of lawsuits I'd imagine. like where do we draw the line on plausible? or do we just go and say yeah meta must be spying on everything and feeding everything to a database where they sell everything about you like what about CCTV backups or robo vac camera feeds? should we assume that companies are deliberately sending all the data so they can sell raw video feeds and they just don't tell you? I'm not counting in incompetence and data breaches, I'm talking about intentional stuff