_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Nearby Glasses
Slapping5552 wrote 5 hours 49 min ago:
I see the privacy issues with smart glasses.
But as someone who can really use the features for daily use - visual
assistance (low vision), alwyas worn set of speakers (no need to futz
around with airpods everytime i want to listen to audio without looking
like a dork)... I really can't wait for android XR smart glasses (sans
display)
drdaeman wrote 5 hours 36 min ago:
I believe the problem is not smart glasses per se, but spyware that
runs on a lot (if not most) of such devices.
Shame the language makes people intrinsically hate the former by
associating it with the latter without even questioning it. The idea
of smart glasses is cool, the implementations are not.
itishappy wrote 3 hours 38 min ago:
Smart glasses are spyware. The ability to record without my
knowledge or consent is what I take issue with. I don't
particularly care if you self host.
nomel wrote 1 hour 47 min ago:
> The ability to record without my knowledge or consent
All major brands have a clear indicator for when they're
recording.
Someone could block that indicator out, but someone could also
just go to Amazon.com and select one of hundred of available
pinhole cameras or not-smart camera glasses.
These aren't enabling an ability that hasn't been enabled for
decades. If anything, seeing someone with main brand smart
glasses makes it more obvious.
com2kid wrote 1 hour 5 min ago:
Not only that, but smart glasses have terrible recording time
limits. A cheap $30 pinhole camera with a SD card will far
surpass meta glasses in recording capabilities.
Hidden cameras have been a thing for a long time now. Stick one
in a pair of glasses and give it a super short battery life and
people freak out...
itishappy wrote 1 hour 33 min ago:
Existing alternatives also make me uncomfortable for the exact
same reasons. I would prefer to avoid anyone who purchases a
pinhole camera for public use, regardless of whether it came
with an LED to indicate recording.
To their credit, smart glasses are an obvious signal for me to
avoid. That doesn't make me appreciate them any more.
nephihaha wrote 6 hours 46 min ago:
This is a real issue. I met up with someone for lunch today and we have
both been harassed and stalked by the same individual. She has called
the police about him before, and he is likely a psychopath. He would
love to get his hands on a set of these. He already uses multiple
phones and other tech to track people.
heyheyhouhou wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
This is similar to this 2014 project
HTML [1]: https://julianoliver.com/projects/glasshole/
elcapitan wrote 7 hours 13 min ago:
Now we only need tiny drones that locate those glasses, grab them and
drop them on the nearby street.
m0llusk wrote 7 hours 45 min ago:
So the bodycam that I have because of threats to my person is okay and
somehow different?
itishappy wrote 2 hours 38 min ago:
No, that honestly sounds like something I'd prefer to avoid being
around too.
duxup wrote 7 hours 39 min ago:
I might be misreading your comment so that being said:
If you wear a body cam because you feel threatened, hopefully you
tell others that you're potentially recording them. The other catch
is that the smart glasses do more than simply record video such as
facial recognition and so on. Often these are things that have
privacy ramifications that neither the wearer or the observer know
exactly.
m0llusk wrote 4 hours 31 min ago:
In public you should assume you are being recorded on video. The
idea that my bodycam can't be connected to cloud identification
tools is weird.
duxup wrote 3 hours 27 min ago:
That doesnât seem to actually address anything I said.
hedayet wrote 8 hours 8 min ago:
Projects like this are useful not only for identifying creeps nearby,
but also for highlighting a broader issue: once AI glasses become
common, everyone nearby becomes part of the experiment.
I recently switched away from my usual brand when they started shipping
AI-enabled glasses. That was my small way of opting out.
catoc wrote 9 hours 10 min ago:
Would renaming to âNearby Glassholesâ be acceptable as a PR?
heyheyhouhou wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
2014, that name, similar thing
HTML [1]: https://julianoliver.com/projects/glasshole/
micw wrote 8 hours 16 min ago:
Give it a try ^^
LlamaTrauma wrote 9 hours 54 min ago:
relevant xkcd
HTML [1]: https://xkcd.com/1251/
btbuildem wrote 10 hours 12 min ago:
Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on
your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices
without consent is a grey area at best.
yonatan8070 wrote 1 hour 12 min ago:
So if I run a Wi-Fi Monitor Mode pcap and Wireshark automatically
renders MACs as the company they belong to, that's not legal now?
IncreasePosts wrote 8 hours 29 min ago:
What region has laws that you're not allowed to look at a packet that
was broadcast from a device? This sounds prima facie absurd, but I
know a lot of strange laws exist out there.
randallsquared wrote 7 hours 3 min ago:
This is a case where any law is strange, but so is a lack of a law,
for some.
* What do you mean it's allowed for people to record me while
I'm telling them off?
* What do you mean I'm not allowed to remember (with high
fidelity) what someone said to me?
Either way, someone thinks it's weird.
magicalist wrote 9 hours 0 min ago:
> Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending
on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing
devices without consent is a grey area at best.
It's looking at the BLE advertising packets that they send out to
everybody. The only thing stored is manufacturer ID, not a device ID
(which you wouldn't be able to get anyways).
You might as well try to press charges against Apple or Google for
putting readable names for nearby devices that aren't yours in the
bluetooth pairing screen.
driverdan wrote 9 hours 12 min ago:
[citation needed]
NoahZuniga wrote 9 hours 32 min ago:
> judge had for lunch
This would be a criminal matter, so a jury would have to decide if
you're guilty. I feel like you'd have a hard time convincing 12
jurors that you're doing something wrong here.
cloudfudge wrote 10 hours 0 min ago:
I'd probably go for "the device explicitly allowed itself to be ID'd
by intentionally broadcasting a signal intended for this purpose."
pluralmonad wrote 10 hours 8 min ago:
Is this legal advice?
davidee wrote 10 hours 9 min ago:
Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data
mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll
take my chances, thank you.
I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There
should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.
leephillips wrote 9 hours 55 min ago:
Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and
photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S., and
no consent is required.
magicalist wrote 9 hours 14 min ago:
> Do you mean in the courtroom or anywhere? Because filming and
photographing people in public is legal everywhere in the U.S.,
and no consent is required.
First, note that "filming" in public is not necessarily legal in
every state if you include recording audio of conversations
you're not party to.
Second, the GP said should be illegal without consent, so clearly
was talking about what's they consider right, not necessarily
what is.
But most importantly, "filming and photographing people in
public" is also obviously not what the GP was talking about. They
said:
> Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a
corporate data mining operation without their consent should also
be illegal.
And, actually, extracting biometrics from video of people and
tracking them/data mining them without consent is in fact not
legal in several states already, and potentially federal law,
depending on what they do.
bryanlarsen wrote 10 hours 43 min ago:
Currently detects via Meta, Essilor or Snap company ID.
So it won't detect my XReal's. I purposefully bought my XReal now
because it feels like they might be one of the last models released
without cameras.
But theoretically I could have the XReal Eye attachment on my glasses,
and could be taking video through that. I don't, but the XReal user
next to me might.
Of course the USB wire hanging from my ear probably makes me look
suspicious enough already that the warning probably isn't necessary
either way...
nomel wrote 7 hours 52 min ago:
Looking at this almost unanimously negative comment section, on a
tech website, it appears you should be concerned about your safety
while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". I imagine
a non-tech crowd would be even more negative.
> for identifying creeps nearby
> I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses.
> Would renaming to âNearby Glassholesâ be acceptable as a PR?
> If you're wearing these glasses and recording people in public,
you're asking for a sweet punch in the face.
itishappy wrote 3 hours 41 min ago:
> I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative.
Weird, I'd assume the opposite. The meme is "tech enthusiasts vs
tech workers" implying there are people who like tech and people
who understand it enough to distrust it. This tech-crowd is more
aligned with the latter.
anonymous541908 wrote 6 hours 13 min ago:
amen
hsbauauvhabzb wrote 7 hours 35 min ago:
Good.
paul7986 wrote 10 hours 59 min ago:
Bought my first pair of Meta glasses in Oct 2023 and overall I really
enjoying using smart glasses! They are great for quickly/easily
capturing life experiences. Also, while traveling or wherever asking
and getting information on things your looking at - it's cool & useful.
Tho Meta makes trash as my 1st pair died after 14 months of use after
a software update and then my 2nd pair only lasted 4 months after some
water splashes. I called Ray Ban for tech support and the lady on the
phone agreed they are trash per how many calls she gets.
I don't care to take pics of strangers tho lots of people who havent
adopted them are concerned about such.
Overall no more Meta glasses for me Im waiting for Apple's. They have
tons of stores to get your glasses fixed and they don't manufacture
trash that breaks! Also, maybe Apple will add a privacy feature so
your pics and vids anonymize faces not in your personal network.
arjie wrote 9 hours 55 min ago:
Do you have children? I frequently want to record things my daughter
does but I find that my phone is not close at hand. I am curious if
the latency to record is low-enough and I don't want to distract my
daughter while she's doing whatever she's doing. I just want to
capture the moment for later without interrupting the moment. They
advertise it as this but I am curious what it's like in actuality.
com2kid wrote 1 hour 3 min ago:
This is the best use case for them IMHO. So many wonderful shots
taken in the moment, and I don't have to see the world through a
phone screen for fear of missing a cute picture.
Quality is iffy and framing is hard, but I'd rather have a OK photo
taken while playing than a great photo taken while standing apart
from the action trying to get the perfect shot lined up.
stbtrax wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
I use it all the time for this use case. It's great because your
hands are free and you can remain an active participant in
play/safety/feeding. I find I capture more moments that I'm more
actively involved in vs passively holding the phone and framing the
shot.
arjie wrote 6 hours 54 min ago:
Thank you and the other responder. I'm going to try to go get
one.
paul7986 wrote 7 hours 57 min ago:
They are great just for that and many instances you want to quickly
take a pic and not interupt a moment.
cole-k wrote 10 hours 51 min ago:
Are you making a counterpoint to the author's premise that smart
glasses are an "intolerable intrusion?"
I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of your comment since it
seems like you're just saying the ray ban glasses are bad for a
different reason.
paul7986 wrote 10 hours 46 min ago:
I love smart glasses they are very useful for people who wear
sunglasses and use their phone to take pics & videos.
Of course with all new technology people fight against it. When I
wore them on rollercoasters at Cedar Point in 2024 ride attendees
said take those off and store them in a locker at the front
entrance of the park (that kid / ride attendant hated them). Yet as
Feb 2026 Six flags now allows smart glasses to be worn thru all its
parks and 7 million have been sold.
Overall I am detailing why they are useful, why I think they will
be widely adopted and like many technologies before it those who
are against them will adopt them too(its a counter argument here).
Sure some creeps will use them and with that in mind Apple has the
possible ability to solve that privacy issue as they are a privacy
company (all pics and vids taken thru APple glasses faces not in
your network are randomize/anonymized).
1659447091 wrote 3 hours 2 min ago:
> Of course with all new technology people fight against it.
People have been fighting against smart glasses since 2012.
Apple may end up with a feature to post-edit others out, and
versions down the road from that one they may have a feature
where you can register faces for a current session and then it
auto-blurs others. Making its own assumptions about in-network or
not and who should be blurred would be a bad user experience with
all it gets wrong; more than a "privacy" company, apple spends a
lot more marketing their optimized UX -- "it just works" -- for
the average person
paul7986 wrote 2 hours 42 min ago:
Google glass was a joke of a technology in terms of being
useful. Meta's when they are working are actual a useful
product especially for those who already wear sunglasses and
use their phone to take pics/vids. Besides normal
pic/videography you can now capture moments when your hands
arent free (skiing, rollercoaster, tubing, kayaking, etc)
Insanity wrote 4 hours 8 min ago:
Your proposed solution is in itself a privacy nightmare. Imagine
Apple having to know your entire network of non-apple users just
to not mess up your videos with friends.
paul7986 wrote 3 hours 15 min ago:
Apple already knows those in your network and has for years.
If you have an iPhone open the camera app and look under
"People & Pets."
1659447091 wrote 2 hours 51 min ago:
You have to specifically identify and name the people in the
photos, otherwise all it knows is that it's a person and
throws it into that folder. And if you don't use icloud none
of it leaves your device. It does the photo processing
locally on the phone. It only knows what you tell it. [1]
HTML [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-ca/108795
HTML [2]: https://applemagazine.com/find-people-and-pets-in-ph...
paul7986 wrote 2 hours 35 min ago:
I've never took any action it just recognizes faces of
those ive taken a good amount of pics with and shows them
in my network including automatically naming some of them.
Tho not all of them seen under People & Pets have their
name automatically listed. But and again it automatically
already knows whose in my network so if I take a pic of
them using my Apple Glasses the glasses tech or app on
iPhone could have the pic focused on them and either blur
out others in public or anonmyize/randomize all other
faces. This is just an idea that would help solve people's
concern with smart glasses and Apple is the privacy
company.
fuzzylightbulb wrote 5 hours 9 min ago:
> Sure some creeps will use them and with that in mind Apple has
the possible ability to solve that privacy issue as they are a
privacy company (all pics and vids taken thru APple glasses faces
not in your network are randomize/anonymized).
This is it's own distopian nightmare. No one exists in the world
but those you've asserted you've met. What if you meet someone
who was in the background of a picture from childhood? Can you
never take your pictures from apple?
paul7986 wrote 3 hours 13 min ago:
If you have an iPhone open the camera app and look under
"People & Pets," to see that Apple already has those in your
network and their pic matched up. As well if you are taking pic
or video of people and they are smiling for the camera that's
an indication your more likely with them then not.
paul7986 wrote 10 hours 25 min ago:
Also noting my disdain for Meta glasses due to their lack of
quality and solid customer service Apple will provide.
dec0dedab0de wrote 11 hours 0 min ago:
This is really neat, I gotta find an android device to try it. Reminds
me of the good old days of wardriving with kismet and netstumbler.
I am surprised there isn't an existing BT/BTLE fingerprint table that
takes more into account than just what is provided. I would assume
each device, or atleast each chipset has subtle quirks that could be
used to weed out some of the false positives.
the link in the readme for the identifiers doesn't work because it's
relative to the repo, so it is below. I like that they did this, it's
so much better than the OUI table for mac addresses, because some
companies (cough cisco) keep getting new ones.
HTML [1]: https://bitbucket.org/bluetooth-SIG/public/src/main/assigned_n...
fusslo wrote 11 hours 11 min ago:
[1] > Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered
anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them,
noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the
jurors was banned.
I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.
HTML [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-gla...
socalgal2 wrote 2 hours 52 min ago:
> I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.
I don't know what Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future is but I
believe it's basically inevitable that most people will be wearing
always on cameras on their face in the future. The same way they
carry always on phones today.
The use cases will be too compelling. There have already been demos.
Ask the AI watching over your shoulder anything about your past and
present and have it act on it.
I'm sure as a hater of that future you don't beleive. For me, I'd
pick 2040 as the latest that people wearing always on cameras will be
as common as smart phones in 2010 and grow at or faster than
smartphones when they get it to actually work and be stylish. I'm not
saying I'll enjoy being watched by all of those cameras. I'm saying I
don't believe I'll have a choice any more than I have a choice of
people having smartphones today.
sublinear wrote 2 hours 21 min ago:
That's way off base.
There's a very significant chunk of people who rarely if ever use
the camera on their phone right now. It's not even a matter of who
they are or their personal opinions. Cameras simply aren't an
exclusive gateway to anything critically important. In many cases a
photo or video is an objectively worse format than text.
Smartphones became common because they are now the only way to
access certain information or authenticate. It's to the extent that
we eliminated hard copy documents and changed publishing and
proving identity irreversibly. People frequently use smartphones
because they have to, and a smartphone without a working camera is
still perfectly usable and always will be.
This isn't a matter of the public being wooed by a sales pitch or
wanting anything in particular. Images require less accessible and
reliable methods of interpretation to convey information whereas
text is the information. If you're not convinced then consider that
both can be generated by AI. A generated image can be convincing
and so can generated text, yet we depend on special forms of text
such as keys which cannot be generated by AI and any image trying
to encode the same is always inferior. An image is never acceptable
as a sole or even primary means of authentication. For all these
reasons and more, an image is never the only format available.
sprinkly-dust wrote 1 hour 18 min ago:
I would disagree that a smartphone without a working camera is
perfectly usable. A lot of the world â especially in developing
countries â runs on QR Codes for everything from restaurant
menus to electronic payments. Without a camera, other stuff too,
like KYC, just doesn't work. These are the sorts of changes that,
as you mentioned, are forcing people to use smartphones. And they
rely on the camera.
newyankee wrote 5 hours 32 min ago:
I was actually hoping it could be paired with speech to text very
well and help along with hearing aids when the latter do not
perfectly work. There are legitimate use cases.
_carbyau_ wrote 3 hours 58 min ago:
Does that need a camera though?
gmueckl wrote 4 hours 33 min ago:
Real time speech to text already exists on glasses with displays
and works reasonably well.
duxup wrote 7 hours 44 min ago:
It's pointed AT US ... not for us.
Refreeze5224 wrote 9 hours 56 min ago:
That's because you are intentionally not included in it. Only him and
his rich owning class buddies are, the rest of us are only
profit-generating NPCs.
kurthr wrote 7 hours 10 min ago:
Epstein class fits here, might as well use it.
p_ing wrote 11 hours 27 min ago:
The dichotomy between the statement in the repo "False positives are
likely" and the app message "Smart Glasses are probably nearby" is
interesting.
catoc wrote 9 hours 23 min ago:
âWhen using the app you are likely to experience false positives,
and when the app alerts you, smart glasses are probably nearby.â
Nothing contradictory there.
Even ââ¦when the app alerts you, smart glasses are likely
nearbyâ might be reasonable.
scotty79 wrote 9 hours 34 min ago:
Perceptions of probability:
HTML [1]: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
mathfailure wrote 10 hours 10 min ago:
That's not a dichotomy.
burkaman wrote 11 hours 23 min ago:
I don't think those are contradictory. Say each notification has a
90% chance of being true, so it's reasonable to say "probably". After
10+ notifications, each of which was individually probable, it is
still very likely that at least one of them was a false positive.
mrbluecoat wrote 11 hours 29 min ago:
Add satellite imagery, nearby self-driving vehicles / Google maps cars,
line-of-sight ring doorbells, peripheral street surveillance cameras,
police equipment, people in your proximity with a smartphone camera,
and various-purpose drones and then you'll have the perfect paranoia
alerter.
randallsquared wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
...people with neuralink or similar, in a year or three.
nickorlow wrote 10 hours 2 min ago:
A big red screen that always says "yes"?
cpeterso wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
Can the app run on smart glasses, warning you of other smart glasses
users nearby? You might not see the notification on your phone.
pavel_lishin wrote 8 hours 54 min ago:
"Glasses detected within 3 inches."
piskov wrote 9 hours 31 min ago:
That would be like antropic and google crying about china stealing
the weights that were originally built by scraping as fuck stolen
content :-)
serf wrote 8 hours 49 min ago:
> That would be like antropic and google crying about china
stealing the weights that were originally built by scraping as fuck
stolen content :-)
do you really see a relation between the two, or are you just
willfully 'buying an advertisement' by trying to shape a metaphor
from the social qualms that you wish to rebroadcast to people?
in other words, no -- this isn't at all similar to the companies
that steal media in order to train models only to complain about
similar theft from other companies targetted towards them -- but I
agree with the motivation, fuck em; they're crooks...
but don't weaken metaphors simply to advertise a social injustice.
If you want to do that, don't hijack conversations abroad.
piskov wrote 8 hours 18 min ago:
Well, at least Chinese paid for api access and all the tokens.
tamimio wrote 11 hours 33 min ago:
Need an iOS.
But I think very soon the whole detection wonât be enough, because
most people will have glasses, phones, CCTV, etc., I think the best is
protecting yourself, so a cloak mask or similar, where for humans
itâs barely visible but for machines it blocks you from being scanned
or recorded.
luxuryballs wrote 10 hours 55 min ago:
an invisibility cloak! crazy times, maybe we can make
anti-smart-glasses glasses that detect smart glasses and have an
invisible beam that can target and blind the cameras
tamimio wrote 10 hours 41 min ago:
> anti-smart-glasses glasses that detect smart glasses and have an
invisible beam that can target and blind the cameras
I love it! I literally thought of something similar while writing
the above comment, something like an EMP that disables all nearby
camera sensors for 10min or so.
ChrisMarshallNY wrote 7 hours 39 min ago:
> an EMP that disables all nearby camera sensors for 10min or so
Some years ago, there was a guy that got arrested (may have been
in Chicago), for riding on the train, and running a cellphone
jammer, because he hated people on the phone, while on the train.
Might be considered somewhat similar. It could definitely earn
you a beatdown, if someone catches you.
luxuryballs wrote 10 hours 36 min ago:
Iâm thinking it could be active enough to actually obscure the
camera recording in real time whenever you are in the frame, like
an actual beam that goes into the camera lens making the normal
light intake all distorted, so it wouldnât appear to
malfunction or fail, it would just be like a refracting smudge in
the feed.
tamimio wrote 8 hours 43 min ago:
I know these below existed, but it only works against IR
enabled cameras aka CCTV, but definitely they wonât against
smart glasses, but I love your idea, a glass distort the
lights, hmmm maybe emit IR?
HTML [1]: https://www.reflectacles.com/order/ghost
tantalor wrote 11 hours 55 min ago:
I'm a bit torn on this because (at least in the sci-fi utopia stories)
when a critical mass of people are recording full time then
interpersonal crime and anti-social behavior is strongly discouraged.
It's like an honor-based culture at scale.
Etheryte wrote 10 hours 31 min ago:
Firstly, fear and honor are far from being the same thing. Second, we
already have this in our society today via smartphones and things
have not changed for the better. If anything, society is more torn
than ever.
AlecSchueler wrote 11 hours 6 min ago:
Would you consider East Germany a sort of social Utopia?
thomassmith65 wrote 11 hours 20 min ago:
It will be a delight for anyone who ever wished there existed footage
of every time they vomited in public or face-planted after tripping
on a cobblestone.
toomuchtodo wrote 11 hours 22 min ago:
[1] [2]
HTML [1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/glasshole/
HTML [2]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole
HTML [3]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
jibal wrote 11 hours 25 min ago:
That's the opposite of honor-based, and those stories are warnings
about going down that path.
zephen wrote 10 hours 22 min ago:
"Honor-based" has a specific meaning, and it is not good.
If the parent is torn about whether this is good or bad, they're
really not paying attention. [1]
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
HTML [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_U...
bryanrasmussen wrote 11 hours 26 min ago:
from my recollection in most of the stories that is the primary
starting point of the narrative but as the story goes along it turns
out what you have is a dystopia, which is what it looks like we would
actually get.
pityJuke wrote 11 hours 32 min ago:
Yes look at this article showing all of the wonderful anti-social
behaviour prevented by smart glasses: [1] (hint: smart glasses
encourage anti social behaviour for online clout.)
HTML [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx23ke7rm7go
burkaman wrote 11 hours 35 min ago:
Mass recording discourages social behavior, not anti-social behavior.
drawfloat wrote 11 hours 33 min ago:
Recording people going about their day is anti social behaviour.
phoronixrly wrote 11 hours 39 min ago:
Which sci-fi utopia stories exactly are you referring to? Please
remind me, because all the scifi with ubiquitous surveillace I recall
are about dystopias instead.
tantalor wrote 11 hours 33 min ago:
I can't recall exactly but it may have been The Light of Other Days
r2_pilot wrote 9 hours 8 min ago:
I believe The Light of Other Days has slow-glass that you expose
to a scene, it drinks it in, and then plays it back later.
morkalork wrote 11 hours 35 min ago:
Right, this is more like Black Mirror S1E3 "The Entire History of
You"
emptybits wrote 11 hours 40 min ago:
> It's like an honor-based culture at scale.
Except the basis of that culture would not be honour, would it? A
critical mass of people scrutinizing and reporting others' actions
might lead to a compliance-based culture. It's different IMO. i.e.
intrinsic motivation to behave well (honour, morality, decency)
versus extrinsic motivation to behave well (fear of unpopularity, law
enforcement, mob reaction, etc.)
hoten wrote 8 hours 21 min ago:
Right. God help you in such a society if the power goes out.
pibaker wrote 10 hours 14 min ago:
It's like how people misunderstand trust. "I trust open source
software because I can review the code." No you don't. If you need
to review the code then you are already not trusting it. Same deal
with "honor" â the entire point of honor is you don't need eyes
everywhere to look for misbehavior. You trust people to do the
right thing. There is no trust in a police state.
zephen wrote 10 hours 24 min ago:
I think you're missing the point. Or, on re-reading, the parent is
missing the point.
"Honor culture" or "Culture of honor" is the term for people who
are thin-skinned, quick to offense, and worried more about
appearances than substance. [1] [2] It's all about a shame-based
society. When someone is made to feel ashamed, they might lash
out. It's practically the opposite of guilt, which is directed
inwardly.
At the margins, a shamed person might commit mass murder, while a
guilty person might commit suicide.
Before you get to the margin, both guilty people and shamed people
might alter their behavior in beneficial ways, but they do it for
subtly different reasons.
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_U...
HTML [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
emptybits wrote 9 hours 40 min ago:
Thanks. I had to be reminded about that phrase "honor culture"
and, yes, I've heard that definition before.
I was focused on how I think an "honourable person" behaves,
which is ... IMO ... someone who behaves well regardless of
whether or not someone is watching them. i.e. being guided by a
personal moral compass, without cultural shame, guilt, government
laws, religious conventions, or physical fear being primary
motivators
But of course, if I adopt a religion's or legal system's idea of
morality as my personal compass (certainly the easiest way to go,
and easily installed in youth) ... then the distinction falls
apart. Cheers.
zephen wrote 8 hours 58 min ago:
> But of course, if I adopt a religion's or legal system's idea
of morality as my personal compass (certainly the easiest way
to go, and easily installed in youth) ... then the distinction
falls apart.
That's obviously part of it, but not the entirety of it.
Guiding your own behavior is different than feeling compelled
to also dictate others' behavior. Honor culture is usually
putatively religious, yet is diametrically opposed to "judge
not lest ye be judged."
To be fully immersed in it is to feel personally slighted by
any perceived transgressions against the normal order of
things, and to have zero sense of proportion about which things
are truly harmful to all of us, and which things are simply not
how we would do things or prefer things to be done.
roughly wrote 11 hours 54 min ago:
50 years ago anti-social behavior included homosexuality.
throwway120385 wrote 11 hours 44 min ago:
Also included drinking from the fountain or sitting in seats or
eating at a restaurant with people colored differently from you. I
wonder what we're going to make "antisocial" in the next 50 years
and whether or not we'll be punishing people for things we'll
consider benign again in 75 years. The whole "let's surveil
everything to stop all antisocial behaviors" might be going too far
just like the idea that everyone should open carry to reduce crime.
tclancy wrote 11 hours 23 min ago:
Can you show your math on how an example of the opposite of what
the person you are responding to you can also mean the same
thing? Feel free to skip if you live in a non-Euclidian geometry,
but the OP was saying such a thing would have been likely to get
people killed in the past for violating a society's mores.
burkaman wrote 11 hours 57 min ago:
Tried this on a Pixel 9, after allowing permissions the Start Scanning
button does nothing, and there's nothing in the debug log. I do like
the idea and might try again in the future if it gets updated. Seems
like a good candidate for F-Droid instead of Google Play.
zoklet-enjoyer wrote 7 hours 56 min ago:
I'm having the same problem on a Pixel 7
Morizero wrote 10 hours 4 min ago:
I had to tap the sprocket in the top right and enable Foreground
Service to get the button to work
crustaceansoup wrote 9 hours 54 min ago:
On my Pixel 9 this overlaps the status bar, and can't be clicked. I
worked around that by split-screening it with another app.
toomuchtodo wrote 12 hours 6 min ago:
HTML [1]: https://www.404media.co/this-app-warns-you-if-someone-is-weari...
DIR <- back to front page