To be clear this is not a real product or whatever I would just be interested in people's thoughts.
Do you think you would like privacy focused smart goggles? Eg: no camera/hardware camera lock, all on device intelligence, signal support, idk what else you guys can leave ideas in the comments.
45 Comments
the_abecedarian@piefed.social · 34 pts · 98d
nah. no way to know what strangers are doing with them
actionjbone@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 98d
There are no "privacy-focused" smart glasses. In fact, all of them are the exact opposite.
Kirk@startrek.website · 6 pts · 98d
"I want a way to record the young ladies at the gym without Meta knowing about it"
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 97d
I'd like a hud, don't really care about cameras.
libre_warrior@lemmy.ml · 27 pts · 98d
Lets not normalize [smart] glasses.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 98d
Why not? AR glasses which don't film the environment but just give a HUD would be rad.
libre_warrior@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 98d
Either we normalize smart glasses or we dont. There's nothing in between. We should not play into Metas surveillance strategy.
FineCoatMummy@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 98d
I'd say, b/c it's impossible to know that by looking at the glasses.
You see a rando walking around with smart glasses. You can't tell at a glance what it can / cannot do. So you must assume the worst.
I'm with Vegafjord oakframer. Normalization will be problematic. Maybe in a perfect world it coudl be OK. But in our world, abuse at scale is 100% inevitable. That's why I think social pressure against smart glasses is for the best.
divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 98d
Or at least make them "for professional use only", and regulate them like they're body cams. If companies risk GDPR fines, they might self-regulate enough to take care of the problem.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 98d
divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 98d
It doesn't work perfectly, but if using smart glasses anywhere outside of the restricted areas of your business risks huge whooping fines, smart glasses will only be allowed in those restricted areas. The same already goes for dangerous tools and hazardous chemicals. On a PC, you can easily screenshot and -record to create documentation or help others. Having this e.g. for a woodworking technique or to show how to replace a specific part in an engine might be a huge value add. But no one needs this shit while grabbing lunch in a public place.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 98d
StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today · 13 pts · 98d
I mostly just don't see the point in them. If the technology could run a live adblocker that would be a different story.
bright@piefed.social · 3 pts · 98d
There's a bunch of good uses for them (but none that outweigh the privacy problems). For example when you look at someone you met before it can pop up info about them like their name, business relationship to you, topic interests you've talked about before, etc.
SatyrSack@quokk.au · 3 pts · 98d
Literally Black Mirror
The special episode "White Christmas"
pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 98d
Smart glasses with HUD and speakers, and bluetooth, no cloud dependency - yes, please.
With camera - absolutely not. This would be just a hidden recording device, absolutely capable of intruding other's privacy, regardless if it's cloud connected or not. I realize that camera provides a lot of functionality, but I just don't see the way how it can preserve privacy of other people and fit in glasses form factor.
pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 98d
Oh, and all that applies not just to camera, but also to microphone. Damn, such a good topic to talk about.
pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 98d
Actually, there is a way to use a camera, but I'm not sure if it's possible from technical or usability perspectives.
Imagine a device that has a camera, but no data connectivity. No WiFi. Only USB for charging and firmware updates. Maybe BT for firmware or control from app. No memory card slot either. Internal storage reserved for system only, camera software cannot store videos or images persistently.
This will probably have to be not open source, especially if bluetooth is present - otherwise someone will figure out how to capture camera feed with a custom firmware.
But if possible, such device can use camera for smart navigation, object recognition, some basic tasks on-device, depending on how much compute (and battery) can be placed into such a small package.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 5 pts · 98d
The problem there is nobody else will know if yours are the privacy friendly glasses with a camera or not. They'll just see smart glasses w/ camera. I certainly wouldn't associate with someone wearing those fucking things, and I'm not going to bother to research which models are which.
pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 97d
What if the glasses come with a little flag stuck in the frame that says "I'm born blind, this thing helps me be less disabled. It's not filming you."? I mean, there are genuinely helpful use cases for such things out there.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com · 2 pts · 97d
If its a camera it's filming. I've never heard of any smart glasses that help blind people, I'd need to know what it was doing with the video. If it's being sent to a cloud service I'm still going to avoid them. Sorry but I'm trying to minimize the amount of my image that's going to these fucking data companies.
northernlights@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 97d
Encrypt the traffic and follow proper key management procedures? It wouldn't exactly be the first open source thing that transmits sensitive data over a network. See you talk about privacy and in one comment find a justification to not disclose the source code. Ahem.
pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 97d
No, you got me wrong. My position is that I don't want anything that is capable of recording and that looks like an object that normally can't do that. So I tried to imagine how something may have camera to capture what user sees, but not be able to store the recordings - only process it in like real-time, or close to it.
I may not understand the hardware design good enough, but I think if you make an open source device, it should allow custom firmware. If you allow custom firmware, someone will write a version of it that will work around the restriction on recording somehow. To be clear, I'm not concerned about communication protocol interception, but about someone changing how such device handles the data it captures.
LeapSecond@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 98d
If smart glasses become mainstream you'll have many people wearing them in public. And you can choose privacy respecting glasses but most people will not. So maybe let's not make them mainstream.
Chais@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 98d
That there is an oxymoron.
iByteABit@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 98d
Keep the creep glasses where they belong, in the bottom of a garbage can
northernlights@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 97d
I would never trust them, no matter the claim.
BingBong@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 98d
No. Absolutely no interest in 24/7 being plugged in.
utopiah@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 98d
There are some already, e.g. https://docs.brilliant.xyz/ with firmware you can replace or https://mentraglass.com/ and I even made one by sticking a RPi with its tiny camera on 3D printed frames https://twitter-archive.benetou.fr/utopiah/status/1449023602079240194/
I'm not saying it's a good idea or that it's private enough, just that it's not a theoretical questions, alternatives to Meta or Google Glass do exist already and some of them are not cloud dependent.
IMHO what's important is to be explicit about usage, understand how it's used and have informed consent. If you use them to be sneaky and hurt others, even if they are "privacy focused", fuck off.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 98d
My thought is that y'all will someday see on the news "old fucker on lemmy arrested for curb stomping some asshole with smart glasses that refused to respect his wish to not be filmed"
Libb@piefed.social · 5 pts · 98d
I would like no smart glasses at all.
'Privacy focused focused smart glasses' sounds as credible as 'your friendly stalker neighbor'.
defrostedLasagna4921@piefed.zip · 4 pts · 98d
This is something I've been wanting, but with a camera. I take lots of videos on my phone everywhere I go, but I often miss moments and record too late. I think having glasses with a camera can make my life documenting easier.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 97d
we don't want you or anyone else to document our lives.
defrostedLasagna4921@piefed.zip · 1 pts · 95d
Don't worry, that isn't something that I try to do.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 95d
not what you try to do, but what would be happening if you would be recording everywhere you go.
Kynsey@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 96d
NightFantom@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 98d
I'd love a useful heads up display with things like navigation, search (as in, "where the fuck did I leave my keys, they should be in my field of view", not "what's the capital of italy"), and something like a dashcam, where you can retroactively playback the last X minutes if something happened, but otherwise it gets deleted automatically.
And nothing gets off the device without my consent of course.
yellerbadger@piefed.social · 4 pts · 98d
I have some smart glasses with no camera and the option to use on device or cloud AI. They've been gathering dust though; they didn't add much to my life once the novelty wore off.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 98d
Dumb question, but what are smart glasses with no camera?
utopiah@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 98d
HUD, head up display, being able to have information displayed on the move without using your hands.
francois@jlai.lu · 3 pts · 98d
Even if I think there could be nice advantages using AR for specific use cases, for example in construction jobs, we should not invest in those technologies in any way as they would become more popular and reduce privacy overall
toomuchrdio@retrolemmy.com · 3 pts · 98d
if it has camera and does show time, calendar, txt files and image files through sd card, without internet connectivity, that would be enough for me
pineapple@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 97d
I don't need another source of distraction. My phone is distracting enough I don't need to have a HUD like that constantly.
musket528@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 98d
if you only use them at your home alone, that's fine
PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 97d
Truly "privacy-focused" smart glasses wouldn't have gesture- or voice controls: because it wouldn't come with cameras nor microphones. It wouldn't allow ambiguity surrounding the ability, for these devices to collect personal data without consent: "trust me bro" toggle switches (controlled by the wearer) don't provide reasonable reassurance, to those in the vicinity of such sensors. Which would pretty much leave a heads-up display, which isn't something for me: I like clear separations between the digital and physical world, and this seeks to further blur that line; together with the obvious surveillance implications of course...
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 97d
I guess if only find it remotely fine if the glasses were very obviously equipped with a camera, bulky and what not.
If not, then its just a pedo cam a guy can use at a childrens playground
MrKoyun@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 91d
No such thing.
Sxan@piefed.zip · -2 pts · 98d
We got some camera glasses as swag and gave þem to by BIL. He used þem to take candid photos of our 4 y/o niece, who was hyper camera-conscious and knew when þe phones were being used for pictures, and would invariably pose. Þe glasses were þe only way he could get pictures wiþout interrupting whatever was going on. I believe þere's use for þem even outside of industry. Þere are stages of dementia where having AR would be helpful to þe sufferer.
I'd like access to privacy-conscious AR.