NSA already has a back door that turns on every camera and microphone without anyone's knowledge, China will have a cheaper model that's compatible in no time and this is just another tussle on the chain of authority from the usual suspects at rag mags trying to be relevant.
Nothing burger, but you are right for posting it as it seems this will be some new 'misogyny in Maui Jims' or 'oogler in Oakleys' to use as clickbait.
Yeah, what got me to post was because I never knew how the left felt about smart glasses until I read the comment section of the gizmodo article.
Apparently it's creepy if you have a camera on your face. Sure, that's like a 2/10 take, but coming from a liberal I automatically suspect they really dislike individuals having the ability to record on command for a different reason lol.
I can't wait for the lawsuit where someone is recording a chimpout and gets attacked because the led light gave him away.
Yea I was wondering if it can detect black paint? A little spot of vantablack and, unless it's got some external sensor that captures the light from the LED (it doesn't), then problem solved. If the LED detects that it's covered, that seems like any smudge would result in a malfunction. Also it wouldn't work in the dark. Idk, seems pretty easily defeated by simple physical means.
I forgot the details, but the sensor tries to match brightness when you use the camera if you obstruct the sensor it won't let you use the camera, the workaround is to block the camera and the sensor so they match in brightness (darkness), then you can record videos but not take photos because all you'll take is a photo of your palm.
What meta is doing now they're going to put in a mandatory update so if they detect you tampered with or disabled with led light, typically people drill them out, your camera function will no longer work.
How do they do it? I imagine all they gotta do is do a led test with the sensor without the camera being activated, if the sensor doesn't pick up intermittent burst of brightness, the led must not be functional, disable camera.
Right, but the sensor has to be in close proximity to the LED (maybe even a transparent sensor), not external. That is, the sensor isn't beyond the lens of the LED. So if you just blot the lens of the LED with black paint (or whatever color matches even, if the paint is thick enough), the sensor should still pick up the light, and the LED will return whatever pulsed signal or voltage drop from the resistance that the device is seeking for functional confirmation, but the LED will be unnoticeable unless maybe you're right up on the person and can see the paint blot.
But my understanding is also that the glasses look like basically normal thick-framed glasses, so unless you're looking for it, you won't notice. So here comes the world where you look askance at everyone with glasses I guess.
you basically described the old method, the new update targets it so it no longer works.
And the glasses, from a distance you really can't tell, but if you're up close you'll spot the camera and sensor points immediately. I know people who wear it, your eyes can't help look at the camera lens, at least for me I can't lol.
So I gather from context the 'LED Light' referred to is some kind of indicator that shows the camera is being used? I've never even heard of Meta Glasses and there isn't any article or information here except a picture of some headlines saying basically the same thing.
I take it these glasses have a camera on them, the camera has a light that turns on when you're using it, and Meta is making so if you try to cover it up or disable it in some way, the camera doesn't work?
What does all the shit about 'creeps' have to do with that? Are people not aware you're allowed to take photos in public, including of other people without their permission? If you were holding a Kodak 35mm up to your face and snapping picture of other people just standing around or whatever, it might be a little strange and I don't doubt some would consider it off-putting, but we're not talking up locker room or upskirt photos are we? Is this ia thing with troons turning the camera on in changing rooms or something?
The lack of context or articles or backstory about what you're talking about and what lead up to this really makes it hard to understand what exactly is going on or why it matters. Are we talking about troons taking pictures of little girls in the locker room at a water park or something? Or is this normal people taking a picture at a park or at a restaurant and others being upset they're in the photo and didn't know?
I linked the article in the first reply, I wish this site lets me post a picture and text in the same post but it doesn't and I wanted to screencap these sites all using the word "creep" in their headline.
The whole point of tech glasses is so I can have my camera running 24/7 and creating a completely different overlay of reality while I'm watching reality.
I want my camera/video in real-time turning fat chicks into giant censored blobs like in Black Mirror so I don't have to look at their fat asses. I want all women's ages to be immediately estimated and presented when I look at one. All 8/10s immediately made nude. I want facial recognition to immediately put women through detection to see if they have an Onlyfans account and/or other Sex Work accounts along with their average PPM and price for sex acts. I want the apps to immediately go through the public social media of women and come up with their interests/hobbies/etc... then come up with pickup lines that are likely to work on her. I want real-time probabilities of her likely agreeing to go back to my place to fuck me based on her body-language and responses. I want all men (and people) to immediately be given a threat indicator next to them and if anyone is Super High Threat I want immediate warnings.
All this stuff is available to the government so it should be available to us.
The whole point of tech glasses is so I can have my camera running 24/7 and creating a completely different overlay of reality while I'm watching reality.
These glasses currently only allow recording for up to 5 minutes at a time. With speculation even if you hacked them they would overheat if recording all the time
Not really, I forgot the details, but the sensor tries to match brightness when you use the camera if you obstruct the sensor it won't let you use the camera, the workaround is to block the camera and the sensor so they match in brightness (darkness), then you can record videos but not take photos because all you'll take is a photo of your palm.
What meta is doing now they're going to put in a mandatory update so if they detect you tampered with or disabled with led light, typically people drill them out, your camera function will no longer work.
How do they do it? I imagine all they gotta do is do a led test with the sensor without the camera being activated, if the sensor doesn't pick up intermittent burst of brightness, the led must not be functional, disable camera.
I'm pro-ownership, right to repair and modify products you own, but it really is your fault for buying a product from a company that doesn't give two shits about consumer rights.
Personally, I think if someone is going to "creep" they're going to get a more sneaky camera than one you put on your face broadcasting I have a camera pointed at my field of view.
I'm sure there are mixed opinions on this topic but as someone who seen these glasses in person, I rather they don't fucking have a homing beacon when recording. Once it's on it's all you can think about and stare at on the other person's face. Maybe I just never gave two shits about being recorded without my consent? Because I don't chimp out? And I'm a guy, if I was a girl I imagine I'd be more worried about something like spy camera disguised as shoe lace buckles or some shit.
Idk, imagine if your friend was wearing a wire. Like he's a snitch for the cops. He comes over to hang out, and you're not breaking any laws, and he's actually not getting paid by anyone to record your conversation, but he's recording anyways.
Idk, that's creepy. Recording someone when they don't know of is creepy. Even if you say they have no expectation of privacy in public, they kinda do have expectations of privacy when the recording device is literally hidden. Like, if we have a conversation in public, it's still our private conversation.
NSA already has a back door that turns on every camera and microphone without anyone's knowledge, China will have a cheaper model that's compatible in no time and this is just another tussle on the chain of authority from the usual suspects at rag mags trying to be relevant.
Nothing burger, but you are right for posting it as it seems this will be some new 'misogyny in Maui Jims' or 'oogler in Oakleys' to use as clickbait.
Yeah, what got me to post was because I never knew how the left felt about smart glasses until I read the comment section of the gizmodo article.
Apparently it's creepy if you have a camera on your face. Sure, that's like a 2/10 take, but coming from a liberal I automatically suspect they really dislike individuals having the ability to record on command for a different reason lol.
I can't wait for the lawsuit where someone is recording a chimpout and gets attacked because the led light gave him away.
There's already acrylic inserts to block the light. This "issue" was solved a long time ago.
Meta doesn't really care either, only to say they did "something" and "hear our customer's concerns."
Yea I was wondering if it can detect black paint? A little spot of vantablack and, unless it's got some external sensor that captures the light from the LED (it doesn't), then problem solved. If the LED detects that it's covered, that seems like any smudge would result in a malfunction. Also it wouldn't work in the dark. Idk, seems pretty easily defeated by simple physical means.
I forgot the details, but the sensor tries to match brightness when you use the camera if you obstruct the sensor it won't let you use the camera, the workaround is to block the camera and the sensor so they match in brightness (darkness), then you can record videos but not take photos because all you'll take is a photo of your palm.
What meta is doing now they're going to put in a mandatory update so if they detect you tampered with or disabled with led light, typically people drill them out, your camera function will no longer work.
How do they do it? I imagine all they gotta do is do a led test with the sensor without the camera being activated, if the sensor doesn't pick up intermittent burst of brightness, the led must not be functional, disable camera.
Right, but the sensor has to be in close proximity to the LED (maybe even a transparent sensor), not external. That is, the sensor isn't beyond the lens of the LED. So if you just blot the lens of the LED with black paint (or whatever color matches even, if the paint is thick enough), the sensor should still pick up the light, and the LED will return whatever pulsed signal or voltage drop from the resistance that the device is seeking for functional confirmation, but the LED will be unnoticeable unless maybe you're right up on the person and can see the paint blot.
But my understanding is also that the glasses look like basically normal thick-framed glasses, so unless you're looking for it, you won't notice. So here comes the world where you look askance at everyone with glasses I guess.
you basically described the old method, the new update targets it so it no longer works.
And the glasses, from a distance you really can't tell, but if you're up close you'll spot the camera and sensor points immediately. I know people who wear it, your eyes can't help look at the camera lens, at least for me I can't lol.
Thanks for the edification. Yea I'd expect I'd have the same issue. "Wtf is that thing on your glasses, and why does it look like a camera lens?"
I thought the flop that was Google glasses would've helped to veer us off this path, but apparently this is where we're headed.
I think I'd install extra LEDs to ensure the chimps know they're being recorded in the first place.
Notice how ALL three articles have WHITE skin people. More antiwhite bigotry from the k1ke media.
zuck knows. he don’t care.
https://x.com/hokeypokey70/status/2070432879545356776
So I gather from context the 'LED Light' referred to is some kind of indicator that shows the camera is being used? I've never even heard of Meta Glasses and there isn't any article or information here except a picture of some headlines saying basically the same thing.
I take it these glasses have a camera on them, the camera has a light that turns on when you're using it, and Meta is making so if you try to cover it up or disable it in some way, the camera doesn't work?
What does all the shit about 'creeps' have to do with that? Are people not aware you're allowed to take photos in public, including of other people without their permission? If you were holding a Kodak 35mm up to your face and snapping picture of other people just standing around or whatever, it might be a little strange and I don't doubt some would consider it off-putting, but we're not talking up locker room or upskirt photos are we? Is this ia thing with troons turning the camera on in changing rooms or something?
The lack of context or articles or backstory about what you're talking about and what lead up to this really makes it hard to understand what exactly is going on or why it matters. Are we talking about troons taking pictures of little girls in the locker room at a water park or something? Or is this normal people taking a picture at a park or at a restaurant and others being upset they're in the photo and didn't know?
Are Facebook glasses not for sale in Tel Aviv?
Then you must literally be the last person on the planet who hasn't. There's billboards everywhere and ads playing non-stop on every platform.
That's exactly the concern; or recording conversations in two-party States, for example.
I don't know about the other guy, but I use adblock, and the only billboards I see are for fireworks and personal injury lawyers.
Are you on the east coast? Remember that TRUMPS A FACIST on I-95
Facebook is a creepy company that makes creepy products and they'd like to downplay that association. That's all that's actually happening here.
In this case they made a product and only creeps bought it.
Probably, but if it was just that Facebook wouldn't give a shit and the left certainly wouldn't be celebrating this.
I linked the article in the first reply, I wish this site lets me post a picture and text in the same post but it doesn't and I wanted to screencap these sites all using the word "creep" in their headline.
The whole point of tech glasses is so I can have my camera running 24/7 and creating a completely different overlay of reality while I'm watching reality.
I want my camera/video in real-time turning fat chicks into giant censored blobs like in Black Mirror so I don't have to look at their fat asses. I want all women's ages to be immediately estimated and presented when I look at one. All 8/10s immediately made nude. I want facial recognition to immediately put women through detection to see if they have an Onlyfans account and/or other Sex Work accounts along with their average PPM and price for sex acts. I want the apps to immediately go through the public social media of women and come up with their interests/hobbies/etc... then come up with pickup lines that are likely to work on her. I want real-time probabilities of her likely agreeing to go back to my place to fuck me based on her body-language and responses. I want all men (and people) to immediately be given a threat indicator next to them and if anyone is Super High Threat I want immediate warnings.
All this stuff is available to the government so it should be available to us.
These glasses currently only allow recording for up to 5 minutes at a time. With speculation even if you hacked them they would overheat if recording all the time
Yeah, so they're useless.
As if most of the problems aren't on smartphons already.
People think only pagers can be blown up remotely?
Wear a potential IED over your eyes, LOL.
You can literally just glue a piece of plastic over it.
Not really, I forgot the details, but the sensor tries to match brightness when you use the camera if you obstruct the sensor it won't let you use the camera, the workaround is to block the camera and the sensor so they match in brightness (darkness), then you can record videos but not take photos because all you'll take is a photo of your palm.
What meta is doing now they're going to put in a mandatory update so if they detect you tampered with or disabled with led light, typically people drill them out, your camera function will no longer work.
How do they do it? I imagine all they gotta do is do a led test with the sensor without the camera being activated, if the sensor doesn't pick up intermittent burst of brightness, the led must not be functional, disable camera.
gizmodo article archived here
I'm pro-ownership, right to repair and modify products you own, but it really is your fault for buying a product from a company that doesn't give two shits about consumer rights.
Personally, I think if someone is going to "creep" they're going to get a more sneaky camera than one you put on your face broadcasting I have a camera pointed at my field of view.
I'm sure there are mixed opinions on this topic but as someone who seen these glasses in person, I rather they don't fucking have a homing beacon when recording. Once it's on it's all you can think about and stare at on the other person's face. Maybe I just never gave two shits about being recorded without my consent? Because I don't chimp out? And I'm a guy, if I was a girl I imagine I'd be more worried about something like spy camera disguised as shoe lace buckles or some shit.
Button-cams have been around for decades.
Idk, imagine if your friend was wearing a wire. Like he's a snitch for the cops. He comes over to hang out, and you're not breaking any laws, and he's actually not getting paid by anyone to record your conversation, but he's recording anyways.
Idk, that's creepy. Recording someone when they don't know of is creepy. Even if you say they have no expectation of privacy in public, they kinda do have expectations of privacy when the recording device is literally hidden. Like, if we have a conversation in public, it's still our private conversation.
Girls needn't to worry about oldschool upskirt pervert pics because they don't wear skirts or dresses anymore.