- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
dude secretly recording
I wonder if that QR code thing would work for the TSA/police cameras that are everywhere now?
I can work on this… give me a few days. Someone come back and check in tho - I’ve got a huge demo meeting Friday.
As an aside - if you come back I’ve got a new firewall we’re releasing open source on codeberg. Linux only because some functions won’t work on windows. Working on OS Agnostic version.
Obvious problems with surreptitious filming aside, these camera-infused glasses have been great for people filming themselves doing things. If only the whole thing wasnt so damn creepy and gross.
Not a brick. Infect it so that it seems to work but continually screws up or corrupts data in weird ways. The user will eventually assume the product is a PoS and shelve it, probably without buying another
Ray Ban is owned by Luxoticca Group and they have plenty of money to throw around too.
If you can’t find malcode, goatse is also a good QR code option.
On a similar note, Flock is known to do OCR on bumper stickers. I’ve recently found myself wondering if there’s any sanitization being done to the OCR output before it gets stored in whatever database they’re using.
Because Bobby Tables.
The comic, for anyone unaware:
https://xkcd.com/327/Let’s assume they don’t, who can design my new bumper stickers?
What are the requirements?
So is there a link that exists already? I’m interested in tattooing this to my jackets.
What kind of sick fuck thinks that’s a selling point?
Mark Zuckerberg.
smile.exe
Never noticed how much he resembles Data, actually.
He’s not Data. He’s Lore.
Also that cream pie surf pic was so that would be what everyone saw when they googled “zuckerberhg hawaii” and not the fact his megacompound was fucking hawaiian residents
You’re right, he is the evil version!
I didn’t fully understand your second part though
The dude is building a fuckin’ fortress in hawaii and there’s a lot of extremely dodgy shit about it. There was actually a huge legal thing going on at the time about his abuse of quiet titles and a signature campaign - but when you googled “zuckerberg hawaii” all you saw was viral pics of him looking like he’d just been creampied. He poisoned the well.
Touche’ lol
They “trust me”
Dumb fucksI mean the marketing guys are doing their job which is to convince you that you are getting a video feed for your to do cool things with. The actual reason is free camera wearing automatons are cheaper than ones you have to pay for.
I have no problem with people recording me. Frankly, we should be doing more Sousveillance, as governments and corporate footage has a terrible track record of mysteriously disappearing whenever it’s convenient to them. But that’s not it. This is yet another corporation using peoples faces as camera mounting points. Fuck them. If you need a spycam for some reason, be a normal
creephuman being, and buy them off aliexpress or somethingFuck meta but that’s not how any of this works
Remember when people got punched for wearing Google glasses?
Peppridge farm remembers
Now we can punch everyone wearing Ray Bans
I was kinda down with that already.
Yeah that wasn’t humanity’s brightest moment.
Stopped this bullshit for a decade or so
Stop advocating violence against people who might be recording video in public, just because the device doing it is on their face.
You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights
You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public. Do you punch every person filming in public? and if you punch someone wearing the glasses, most likely they weren’t even recording.
You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public.
Uhhhh, you actually do.* I am not sure if you know, but different places have different laws.
You do in Germany, except during events/gatherings/marches.
I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should
- overthrow the orange turd
- campaign for it democratically
not go around punching people for violating a legal right they do not have. Your discomfort at maybe having your picture doesn’t entitle you to violence.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook is the one doing the unreasonable search, and we simply buy their data
most likely they weren’t even recording.
Sweet summer child
You didn’t answer the question. You could just have said that you’re overreacting because it’s tech associated with Meta and you don’t like them, even though it’s basically the same as a phone, just on your face.
You think smart glasses have enough battery to record constantly? lol.
If I see someone filming me, I ask them to stop. That will escalate if they don’t.
I think what people are missing here is the intention. There’s generalised filming of your surroundings, surveillance cameras…these glasses are intended for use in a social capacity. That will move into privacy issues and perverted use.
These peoples right to use these glasses, as far as I’m concerned, does not eclipse my privacy or lack of desire to be filmed and put on Metas platforms and if I find someone using them on me they’ll be fucking told.
Most likely either the glasses are in a state of recording, or the wearer has no idea what it’s doing. Damned! After so many scandals, people still assume Meta will do what it claims and not trick its users! Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Fool me 42 times, more, please MOOOOORE!
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving battery capacity and power consumption puts that idea to bed.
What right would be violated here exactly?
facebook knowing my personal information against my will goes against my right to privacy. there are also the ethics of recording people in secret instead of making it very obvious. no, a blinking red dot does not count, and it can also be covered with a special purpose-made made black sticker.
now that i think about it, I’m just not comfortable being filmed without consent by strangers at all, in any way, regardless of where the images end up.
i don’t think people should get used to it either. it’s incredibly creepy, even if no law is broken where you live.
and yes, i do understand that in many places just being in public reduces your right to privacy so that you’re legally allowed to be photographed as long as you’re not the focus. i don’t care. still creepy.
I’m sure you’re aware while you traverse in public you are on camera pretty much the entire time, right? There are cameras everywhere always filming, some you know about and can clearly see, some you will never know about and never see. Your face is in a database whether you consent or not.
The part about Facebook knowing your information without your consent? Do you have an account with them?
I agree it can be creepy. But where I live, and in the US, as well as many other countries, you have no expectation of privacy in public. That’s why it’s called public. It might feel right to want to impose some restrictions on public photography, but since there’s absolutely no way to fairly draw a line, it’s better to not impose limits at all.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook does the unreasonable searching and we pay them for any data they collect
Quite many when used anywhere except in public space.
Funny how people think they have a “right” of privacy in public… there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. Besides, there are cameras EVERYWHERE always filming.
This only makes sense if you imagine rights are granted to you by your wise and benevolent king when he’s in a good mood and no one else.
And you’re the second person in this thread who can think. Thank you.
I’ve been threatened with violence twice already in this very thread, in the hypothetical scenario that I would film them. I don’t think Lemmy is for me. Too violent.
A clear violation of the social contract deserves a swift response. Those glasses come off your face, and onto the pavement.
Who made this social contract? I certainly didn’t. You want to be able to tell everyone else what the social contract is, and assault them if they don’t comply.
Fascist.
When you say “fascist”, you do realize that fascism involves crowd control and these glasses are a dream for a fascist regime? All the speech about “cameras everywhere is ok” falls right in the authoritarianism thinking, that’s just a step from fascism.
This account ^ is going very far out of its way to make very bad points and overlook obvious gaping privacy violations, which are things that can be both identified and stopped.
The takeaway of massively privacy invading glasses is they can always be stopped at both the individual and the systemic level.
No they don’t. I might actually go film on the sidewalk just outside your home, and there would be nothing at all you can do about it.
I think the real problem is that you don’t seem to realize/care how gross and rapey you sound. That’s… maybe something to work on.
Using “nearby glasses” set to 20m to detect the glasses’ Bluetooth signature (plan on making that a module I can attach to the front doorframe), I can easily detect the presence of your meta lenses. Then, you shall have two options after I speak to you. Surrender the glasses, or speak to my personal attorney. Or if I’m not at home, my drone, which will ram into your face to destroy the glasses.
I don’t appreciate the threat of violence. I won’t surrender my property to you, you will not destroy my property, you will not hurt me without me defending myself, and your attorney will not bend the law for you.
This may be perfectly legal but it is absolutely a dick move and people will HATE you for it. The are so many scenarios where perfectly reasonable people will find this behavior extremely unsettling, at best, and possibly threatening.
And you are incorrect in assuming that “there would be nothing [the subject] can do about it “. In the real world there are plenty of people who will risk an assault charge to deal with someone being a disrespectful dick, and many more who will act if they feel threatened.
Now, might doesn’t make right, but are you right? Going against social norms and risking extrajudicial retaliation to fight injustice is commendable. But this isn’t sitting at a lunch counter during segregation or protesting at Stonewall. In a world where 1 in 3 women will be stalked in her lifetime ( in the US according to the Justice Department), why is this the hill you want to die upon?
It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording. If you don’t want to be recorded, you can just stay the fuck away from them. You can’t avoid cameras/recording devices you can’t see. Fuck meta, and fuck anyone else wearing their garbage, privacy invading glasses.
It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording.
Really? I routinely keep my phone in my breast pocket whenever I wear a shirt with one, and enough of it sticks out for the camera to see above the top of the pocket. I’d look no different recording or not, let alone it being obvious if I’m doing it. It’d be shaky body-cam style footage, but that’s not the point.
Yeah, it’ll be really hard to spot the giant dorky glasses with the laser beam recording LED.
Of course, in practice you don’t behave differently when you spot someone holding their phone up in the street, because you’re already behaving like you’re being watched because you’re in fucking public.
People with legal issues, immigration issues or violent exes will absolutely dip if they see someone recording. I have none of these problems and I will always avoid gettIng recorded by randos if it’s easy to do so. I can’t reasonably avoid every Ring cam in my neighborhood but I will happily slide 10 feet to the left to avoid becoming collateral damage in some dbags insta reel.
So you can do the same thing when you see someone wearing the glasses, then. You won’t always be able to spot them, of course. Just like you can’t spot if someone’s filming on their phone all the way down a train carriage, or in a crowd.
If your immigration and law enforcement agencies are so awful (I assume most people here are American, and so they are) that normal people recording videos risks harm to people who haven’t done anything wrong, then it seems like the focus should be on that first, and video recording in general second.
People in this thread want to punch wearers of smart glasses because they hate Zuck. They all have issues if their rage comes out that way.
Removed by mod
I’m not going to wear the video glasses. But if I see someone assaulting someone over some stupid gadget, I’m going to try and help that person. Take your violent fantasies elsewhere, sicko.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
But violence isn’t the answer. And certainly not to people doing legal stuff in public. Wearing a Google Glass in private is different though.
All I’m saying is last time this tech trend came around, enough people who had a problem with it took drastic actions that directly affected the popularity of wearing a spycam on your face.
Wouldn’t surprise or upset me if history repeated itself.
Wouldn’t surprise me either. But it’s a hugely illogical reaction.
You can make the claim that it’s immoral or something, but you cannot claim it’s illogical.
Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.
I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can’t behave.
Id rather nobody have one.
Look, taking such glasses into a locker room is a problem. But someone wearing them in public is not. Anyone punching someone who does that should be taken to jail, simple as that.
How is it illogical if it worked? It might be immoral, but there’s a clear through-line of cause and effect.
It’s illogical because you’re being recorded for far more nefarious purposes anyways.
Humans are illogical in most cases. It’s something you have to put up with when living in a society.
doing legal stuff in public
Just because its legal doesn’t mean its right
If you think something is wrong then, unless that risk places you at actual risk of harm, you can have that conversation - in public forums, at the ballot box, with your political representatives. If, rather, you want to dictate what you think is right on everyone, with threat of violence then that is something else.
nothing is being dictated. surveillance is violence. if you harm me, maybe i will reduce that harm, also using violence. fuck around and find out logic.
You need to look up “violence” and “harm” in the dictionary.
Surveillance is a form of violence that those wearing the glasses are imposing on us.
You need to look up “violence” in the dictionary.
If you wear this, you’re an agent of the gestapo.
The Gestapo, known for using violence to suppress the activities of those they don’t like without allowing the public to come to a democratic decision on the matter? Interesting.
See, what’s “right” is a (shared) opinion. One of the consequences of living in a free country is that other people can have their own opinions.
Amid a second Trump presidency that is going very poorly is truly a wild time to start crowing about a person’s rightful freedom to be dumb on purpose.
deleted by creator
The smartest thing you did today was delete that comment. What happened, did you have an epiphany?
Have fun beating up journalists! I’m glad you aren’t a politician.
violence is the answer against people who already commit violence. reducing your sense of privacy and safety is violence. not to mention that this data could be used for ICE’s benefit, which would even add physical violence.
I agreed with you up to this statement, no Karen, getting filmed in public is not violence, even if it’s concealed, Jesus Christ
Filming in public is not a form of violence in and of itself. Have you ever noticed that the public is called “public”, which is the opposite of “private”?
sharing that information with facebook is the violence. i don’t care if you take a photo and print it out to have it in a photo album. i care when i am in a big tech database, or even worse, an intelligence agency database. not that the two are very separate.
That’s a twisted view on the definition of violence… Anyhow, how would you distinguish between people filming for journalistic purposes, people filming and sending it to Meta, and people filming for other reasons? How would you decide who deserves your violence?
When the law abandons the people, the law of the jungle returns.
One of those people
?
A loser
Are you calling me a loser? If so, would you care explaining why you consider me a loser?
“Never believe that
anti-Semitespeople like this person are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. Theanti-Semitespeople like this person have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”Jean-Paul Sartre
Yeah, putting cameras in glasses is a really stupid idea
People hitting other people because they don’t like whatever legal activities the other person is undertaking, that’s stupid.
You would have fought for the confederacy because it was legal to own slaves
No? I just don’t think filming in a public place is wrong. Why would it be? No one has been able to provide a reason.
People have said: facebook analytics, ICE tracking, and a general discomfort with being ‘seen’ always. You won’t accept any of these because you are a corporate tool.
The first two seem like reasonable concerns, but like, people have eyeballs. When you go out in public… people are seeing you. If someone has a photographic memory and the savant ability to perfectly replicate what they’ve seen by drawing it, would you take issue with them? Obviously an edge case, but those people technically also exist. Their cooperation with authorities to me to share what they’ve recorded is the issue you would take.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe privacy in one’s own home ought to be a legal right, but I don’t understand extending it into a place where that’s functionally impossible on a number of levels. I’ve been recorded plenty where I live by people pulling out their phones. While I do feel some level of tension from that due to the current state of our government, I don’t think that public recording on a fundamental level shouldn’t be a allowed. Hell, even in secret, sometimes people have security camera systems around their living space and the camera’s “reach” into public spaces. Also I’ve secretly recorded conversations I’ve had as well for legal and employment security reasons.
The reason it’s wrong is because the device filming is sending data to police and corporations, who frequently abuse the law. People do not have a problem with you using any other camera, such as a phone or camcorder. The problem is the specific device, not filming in general.
Why do you assume it is only happening in public? Since it is hidden cameras, in glasses, they can be recording anywhere (and even if the user hasn’t asked them to record explicitly, they are probably sending data back to their servers anyway - we know they have been doing that with microphones for literal decades already).
I protest against this for the same reason I would protest against the government flying tens of thousands of drones around the city to track every person’s whereabouts and location history. Facebook gives the police unfettered access to their information. It’s like a Ring doorbell, but dumber looking and it moves around.
If you’re sitting next to me with these fuckass glasses on, then you are giving the government live video feed of me. The only difference between this and a drone that’s personally following me is that technically, this doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because the government isn’t the one sending a mindless drone after me with a camera, Facebook is. It’s only technically not a violation of my right to privacy, in the same way that deporting people for saying “from the river to the sea” is only technically not a violation of the First Amendment.
pretty close to the brightest in the past decade, tho
Welp.
Orwell warned us.
It’s kind of crazy that we’re already kind of there. I find myself constantly thinking about how I’m most likely being recorded at any given time I’m not at home. Even at home until I put my foot down and told my girlfriend her Ring cameras inside the house were to be put away unless we were on vacation.
And I’m old enough to remember when this feeling of being watched all the time was not a thing. I know it helps solve a lot of crimes, but honestly, I don’t care. I don’t think it’s worth it to live in a surveillance state.
Also, I’m a nudist. I go to nude resorts/beaches. People are going to be wearing these fucking things now and then uploading the video to the internet. NOT OK. Like, there’s an unspoken rule among nudists not to have phones out, and if someone does, people will confront them about it. But you can’t really protect against hidden fucking cameras in sunglasses.
I’m so tired of all this.
Or at least go full fucking Orwell with it and let me see the benefits.
Every fucking night someones shithead kids are out breaking into and stealing cars in my neighbourhood and every fucking day I have to dodge unregistered dirt bikes and unrestricted E-bikes on the roads just trying to go to work and do groceries like a regular boring asshole who has to obey all the fucking rules because if I beat the fuck out of the cunt in my driveway trying to get into my car and possibly steal it I’ll catch charges and if I dont pay all the registration costs, insurances and drive exactly as I’m told the government will destroy my livelihood.
Do something about the brainless fucks that cant live in a society FIRST and maybe I’ll complain less about the surveillance state.
All those surveillance cameras didn’t do shit for Nancy Guthrie
bUt tH3R R SuRvALanCe cAmeRAs iN t3H sTr33T
wATs uR pORBLem
We have been here for years, the NSA has been recording everything we say here in the U.S. for… a long time. I’m not actually clear on how long they’ve been doing it.
Also, I can buy a camera no wider than a penny and have it quite literally anywhere on my person without you knowing — unless nudists also have a rule where they drive to the nude beach naked, you’ve kinda been shit out of luck for a while there too.
Edit: sorry, sorry — I lied. It is slightly larger than a penny.
Thank you for mentioning nude beaches. I’m a woman and I have a favorite nude beach I go to and people constantly have their phones/(camera) out and it’s not okay. If they’re confronted about it they’ll just respond that it’s a public placeand it’s legal to film in public. It’s out of control at this beach. It’s disgusting. A few weeks ago there was a man sitting staring at me for an hour (I was napping asleep, he was there before I fell asleep and he was still there when I woke up, still staring at me) and in retrospect I realize he was wearing these meta glasses. I told him firmly angrily to stop staring at me and he finally got up and left 😡
Basically poisoning the well for augmented reality glasses.
