> Google Glass originally failed due in part to public backlash at being recorded without consent in public spaces. However, it’s also true that in the decade since, people have become more accustomed to being filmed due to the rise of smartphones, vloggers, and TikTok.
This is a massive "citation needed." People around me are still almost always not filming, and I absolutely have not become accustomed to being filmed. I expect that's generally true for most people?
Really glad there are researchers out there coming up with bad actor scenarios, and I hope corporations, privacy advocates, and the government take these into consideration.
These are solvable problems. Not always 100% but the harms can be mitigated. But the truth is that some people don't want these problems solved.
This use seems like it would violate the terms of service for pimeyes, which say it should only be used with the consent of the people in the photos. (In practice it's clear they dont actually care)
Stuff like this makes me glad that my family and myself practice digital hygiene such that there is not a single photo of myself online that could lead back to me.
For everyone else's sake I hope employing automated (facial) recognition on private citizens becomes so highly illegal, no sane person would ever dare to do crap like this.
Meta just released an internet connected camera disguised as eye wear. That makes this situation quite different. If a person wants to reject being photographed, they move away from the person holding the camera, or avoid public places that have surveillance systems. The expectation has now been increased: to reject being identified, a person must avoid people wearing glasses.
In basically any public space, there are tons of people on their phones, and the sense that these people could easily be turning a camera towards me is, for me at least, constant. I don’t think this is very new.
I understand the practical difference of angle, but in terms of how it affects public places for me, I mean that I already feel constantly surveilled. I really don’t feel like it makes much of a difference for me.
> Google Glass originally failed due in part to public backlash at being recorded without consent in public spaces. However, it’s also true that in the decade since, people have become more accustomed to being filmed due to the rise of smartphones, vloggers, and TikTok.
This is a massive "citation needed." People around me are still almost always not filming, and I absolutely have not become accustomed to being filmed. I expect that's generally true for most people?
Just search for "glasshole" online and you get the articles from 2014.
Heh, I should have been clearer. I meant citation needed on the other sentence.
Really glad there are researchers out there coming up with bad actor scenarios, and I hope corporations, privacy advocates, and the government take these into consideration.
These are solvable problems. Not always 100% but the harms can be mitigated. But the truth is that some people don't want these problems solved.
Another example in the wild was Apple Air Tags.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726385
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724957
among other submissions.
Just focus on the students' source instead of repeating these news posts over and over and over
Source Doc: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724310
I'm curious about how they do the reverse image search. Do they just use Google?
The article mentions that they used publicly available databases. Their paper specifically mentioned Pimeyes and Facecheck ID.
This use seems like it would violate the terms of service for pimeyes, which say it should only be used with the consent of the people in the photos. (In practice it's clear they dont actually care)
Stuff like this makes me glad that my family and myself practice digital hygiene such that there is not a single photo of myself online that could lead back to me.
For everyone else's sake I hope employing automated (facial) recognition on private citizens becomes so highly illegal, no sane person would ever dare to do crap like this.
While I like what they stitched together, it has nothing to do with meta ... at the end of the day, any camera can do the same
Meta just released an internet connected camera disguised as eye wear. That makes this situation quite different. If a person wants to reject being photographed, they move away from the person holding the camera, or avoid public places that have surveillance systems. The expectation has now been increased: to reject being identified, a person must avoid people wearing glasses.
Far more people wear glasses than hold a camera.
In basically any public space, there are tons of people on their phones, and the sense that these people could easily be turning a camera towards me is, for me at least, constant. I don’t think this is very new.
You don’t think the camera being on a person’s face is different from them holding it in their hands?
I understand the practical difference of angle, but in terms of how it affects public places for me, I mean that I already feel constantly surveilled. I really don’t feel like it makes much of a difference for me.
How many people would notice a pen sticking out of a pocket?
https://www.ispypens.com/
All I've ever wanted from AR glasses is the ability to look up people's names so I don't have to remember them.