Hacker News

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.

I had to tap the sprocket in the top right and enable Foreground Service to get the button to work

That would be like antropic and google crying about china stealing the weights that were originally built by scraping as fuck stolen content :-)

"Glasses detected within 3 inches."

> 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.

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.

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.

I'd probably go for "the device explicitly allowed itself to be ID'd by intentionally broadcasting a signal intended for this purpose."

> 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.

Is this legal advice?

[citation needed]

A big red screen that always says "yes"?

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.

“When using the app you are likely to experience false positives, and when the app alerts you, smart glasses are probably nearby.”

Nothing contradictory there.

Even “…when the app alerts you, smart glasses are likely nearby” might be reasonable.

That's not a dichotomy.

Perceptions of probability:

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....

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

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.

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.

> 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.)

Yes look at this article showing all of the wonderful anti-social behaviour prevented by smart glasses: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx23ke7rm7go

(hint: smart glasses encourage anti social behaviour for online clout.)

Mass recording discourages social behavior, not anti-social behavior.

Would you consider East Germany a sort of social Utopia?

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.

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.

50 years ago anti-social behavior included homosexuality.

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.

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.

That's the opposite of honor-based, and those stories are warnings about going down that path.

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/glasshole/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...