Again, you’re assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.
The only reason why there’s not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they’re actually selling.
Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.
Nope, I didn’t say that’s the only way the data will be handled. I did say that a big portion of it might be advertising and other privacy abuses in exchange for money. There’d be great value in smart glasses and at scale for helping near blind people around or people with dementia and the glasses reminding them, showing them stuff they already had forgotten like their payment details or children. But mostly there are gonna be assholes shooting videos of their dates or women in parks without them knowing, making deepfakes from them, jerking off, you get the idea. A blinking red light on smart glasses when recording would be a start at least
My stance is that there’s always going to be assholes. Trying to stop them ahead of time by banning technology won’t stop them but it will stop legitimate uses of said technology.
Regulations that would probably be fine:
Require recording lights.
Require shutter sounds.
…because those don’t halt the technology. They’re just mild annoyances for regular users. To me, that’s like “your car needs working headlights and tail lights.”
When I see people asking for “glasses + camera” to be outright banned my alarm bells go off. Both of these things already exist and there’s nothing stopping someone from strapping a cell phone or GoPro to their head. Banning such technology feels like burying your head in the sand because you saw someone doing something you don’t like with a technology you haven’t seen before.
Again, you’re assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.
The only reason why there’s not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they’re actually selling.
Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.
Nope, I didn’t say that’s the only way the data will be handled. I did say that a big portion of it might be advertising and other privacy abuses in exchange for money. There’d be great value in smart glasses and at scale for helping near blind people around or people with dementia and the glasses reminding them, showing them stuff they already had forgotten like their payment details or children. But mostly there are gonna be assholes shooting videos of their dates or women in parks without them knowing, making deepfakes from them, jerking off, you get the idea. A blinking red light on smart glasses when recording would be a start at least
My stance is that there’s always going to be assholes. Trying to stop them ahead of time by banning technology won’t stop them but it will stop legitimate uses of said technology.
Regulations that would probably be fine:
…because those don’t halt the technology. They’re just mild annoyances for regular users. To me, that’s like “your car needs working headlights and tail lights.”
When I see people asking for “glasses + camera” to be outright banned my alarm bells go off. Both of these things already exist and there’s nothing stopping someone from strapping a cell phone or GoPro to their head. Banning such technology feels like burying your head in the sand because you saw someone doing something you don’t like with a technology you haven’t seen before.