As is already revealed with Meta leadership knowing that they make 7billion a year on scam ads. They even calculated that global regulations and fines might cost them 1 billion.
So fines and regulations are priced in as a fraction of the net earnings.
"using the bathroom" will be the least of what they're watching people do. Anyone wearing these glasses (or similar) should know that all of the audio/video picked up by the glasses will be watched and analyzed by others, likely by AI as well. Just like the entire point of facebook is to spy on people and profit from that data, the entire point of these devices is to spy on people in ways that the facebook app doesn't/can't and profit from that data.
Sure you do. All of those are available in local versions without Internet.
Youjust need to care enough, be able to afford them (while my vacuum has no camera, it requires the cloud, but it was significantly cheaper than a local or hackable one), and have the ability to self host something like home assistant.
We definitely don’t have any hard boundaries baked into this tech preventing big tech from (ab)using our data this way. But are there specific companies you think are doing this? I think with Meta products, it’s been rather obvious for a long time. But I’ve had a Nest doorbell camera and thermostats for years, and first iRobot and now Roborock vacuums, and they don’t really seem so suspect.
You should assume that Google is collecting every scrap of data they can from nest products and that your data will (or could) be handed over to police and the state with or without warrants and with zero notice to you. There were concerns raised with irobot devices selling the floorplans of your home (https://gizmodo.com/roombas-next-big-step-is-selling-maps-of...) and now its owned by China (Picea) so who knows what they're doing. Roborock is also a Chinese company who appears to have been under investigation in Korea for data leaks (https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-03-05/busines...).
At this point I'd consider anything not locally hosted (and certainly anything owned by Google, Amazon, or facebook) to be highly suspect.
I think it's a reasonable ask that when buying a product, it has reasonable levels of safety, security, and privacy. Especially with products that might change over time because of software updates.
Yes, there are ToS, but it's fine for us as a society to say that consumers deserve more protection against big tech so we aren't a TOS update away from having everything shared or be used for something that wasn't promoted.
> You have free will. If you do not like a commercially available product, don't buy it, don't use it.
Caveat emptor. But lemon laws exist, too.
And, a commercially available product now might not be the same a year from now.
There's compelling reasons for all sorts of home devices to be connected to the internet[1] but the rub is that ToS flexibility and software updates make this a backdoor waiting to happen. I feel like our legal system has significantly failed us by not empowering the consume to say "I accept your device with a wifi antenna for the purposes of updating and I reject any exfiltration of personal data from it to your servers". You can have such a contract written - but this is really a place where something like a consumer advocacy board should step in and make sure those rights and sanely guaranteed.
1. It'd be great to ease the method for updating, it'd be nice to be able to easily monitor the device especially if it could become active in some manner while you're absent (I don't want the stove turning on to broil right after I leave on a three month vacation)
> I feel like our legal system has significantly failed us by not empowering the consume to say "I accept your device with a wifi antenna for the purposes of updating and I reject any exfiltration of personal data from it to your servers".
Worse it's allowed for them to remote into your device and disable features that you bought the device to use, by paywalling them off behind a subscription service that didn't exist when you brought the product home or just them entirely. To me that's no different than theft. It doesn't matter if it's amazon logging into you kindle overnight and removing books you already paid for from your virtual bookshelf, or Sony pushing an update to remove the option to use linux on your PS3, or BMW deciding that you should have to pay them every month just to use the heated seats option you already paid for when you bought your car.
If I, as an individual, sold you something than broke into your house to steal it or break it or demand ransom to get parts back that would be a crime, but companies get away with it somehow. What Google, Facebook, and Amazon do are basically just stalking.
Just to clarify, I don't mean what I said in a manner hostile to consumers, I mean what I said in a manner hostile to abusive corporations. Let them either adapt to market demand for better products (which we demonstrate by not continuing to buy their current garbage), or let them (the corporations) starve and die if they refuse to.
That's my policy, but there's a sucker born every minute and they are buying these products so anytime you are in or near their homes or anywhere a microphone or camera can see you (even one mounted on some idiot's head) you're at risk. Even worse, both people and corporations typically don't disclose their use of those devices when you enter their homes/businesses either.
Sadly, "using the bathroom" will cause a more immediate visceral reaction for most people than "maliciously manipulating your entire life via ad networks and media".
Do we really care what it is that will cause the visceral reaction? If I said it might reveal ways/means or private IP or any of a million other examples, few would really care as not everyone is involved in that. However, everyone goes to the bathroom.
I care a little bit - I think it's genuinely disappointing that your privacy can be so thoroughly compromised by interesting uses of metadata... but I also won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It'd be great is people truly understood the dangerous of invasive monitoring outside their physical forms (a, imo, relatively minor privacy to have compromised compared to your behavior) - but if it gets folks riled up I'm all for it.
How many times will the same report be regurgitated and reposted? There is nothing added here that the original source didn't cover already (https://www.svd.se/a/K8nrV4/metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-...). Read that instead of the derivative blogspam.
Can that original source be reposted on HN within a short timespan or will it be deleted/comments moved? How then would this report gain more traction if only allowed once?
Similar to Pokemon Go big tech can get footage in places not visible from the road. At work in the restroom should be a notification to HR and lawsuits. In some states this would be jail time [1].
We have been telling people to stay away from big USA tech companies and what they do??
Buy a smart glass from said company!!
No symphaty, and knowing how the system works, these videos will never be deleted and will move from one hanf to another, until somebody leaks them online or request money.
Still, amazing how Meta (and Luxottica?) massaged the media to have the wearers of its dystopian goggles not labeled how they ought to be labeled: Glassholes.
Add it to the list. Here are just a few more of their flagrant privacy violations.
Facebook/Meta pays teens to install a VPN so they can snoop on user traffic and decrypts competitors traffic (Snapchat) under guidance of Zuckerberg himself. [1]
Facebook/Meta covertly backdoors users phones [2]
Facebook requests phone number for 2FA and then uses for ads/tracking without disclosure [3]
ChrisArchitect | a day ago
baal80spam | a day ago
ryandrake | a day ago
moab | a day ago
kjsingh | 23 hours ago
JohnMakin | a day ago
sdoering | 23 hours ago
So fines and regulations are priced in as a fraction of the net earnings.
https://mashable.com/article/meta-7-billion-dollars-scam-ads
autoexec | a day ago
simmerup | a day ago
We consumers have no protection against big tech
SoftTalker | a day ago
Semaphor | 23 hours ago
Youjust need to care enough, be able to afford them (while my vacuum has no camera, it requires the cloud, but it was significantly cheaper than a local or hackable one), and have the ability to self host something like home assistant.
simmerup | 22 hours ago
Sure you can root all your own hardware but you can’t stop the fact that your walk down the street is documented by Amazon and Google front door bells
There is no opt out of this surveillance if you live in modern society
whilenot-dev | 21 hours ago
Quite an if you got there... pointing security or doorbell cameras to public spaces isn't legal where I live.
AlecSchueler | 11 hours ago
zombot | 8 hours ago
Gigachad | 20 hours ago
Semaphor | 16 hours ago
pseudocomposer | 23 hours ago
autoexec | 22 hours ago
At this point I'd consider anything not locally hosted (and certainly anything owned by Google, Amazon, or facebook) to be highly suspect.
idiotsecant | 20 hours ago
simmerup | 22 hours ago
They are all dipping into our data for their ends, Meta is just particularly sloppy/honest about it
boomskats | 23 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 17 hours ago
MisterTea | 2 hours ago
indubioprorubik | 23 hours ago
TheOtherHobbes | 20 hours ago
anonym29 | 23 hours ago
Stop buying it. You are not a robot that is forced to purchase a video doorbell or a robotic vacuum cleaner or a smart thermostat.
You have free will. If you do not like a commercially available product, don't buy it, don't use it. It's that simple.
jasonlotito | 22 hours ago
Yes, there are ToS, but it's fine for us as a society to say that consumers deserve more protection against big tech so we aren't a TOS update away from having everything shared or be used for something that wasn't promoted.
> You have free will. If you do not like a commercially available product, don't buy it, don't use it.
Caveat emptor. But lemon laws exist, too.
And, a commercially available product now might not be the same a year from now.
munk-a | 22 hours ago
1. It'd be great to ease the method for updating, it'd be nice to be able to easily monitor the device especially if it could become active in some manner while you're absent (I don't want the stove turning on to broil right after I leave on a three month vacation)
autoexec | 21 hours ago
Worse it's allowed for them to remote into your device and disable features that you bought the device to use, by paywalling them off behind a subscription service that didn't exist when you brought the product home or just them entirely. To me that's no different than theft. It doesn't matter if it's amazon logging into you kindle overnight and removing books you already paid for from your virtual bookshelf, or Sony pushing an update to remove the option to use linux on your PS3, or BMW deciding that you should have to pay them every month just to use the heated seats option you already paid for when you bought your car.
If I, as an individual, sold you something than broke into your house to steal it or break it or demand ransom to get parts back that would be a crime, but companies get away with it somehow. What Google, Facebook, and Amazon do are basically just stalking.
anonym29 | 22 hours ago
Stop feeding the parasites.
autoexec | 22 hours ago
That's my policy, but there's a sucker born every minute and they are buying these products so anytime you are in or near their homes or anywhere a microphone or camera can see you (even one mounted on some idiot's head) you're at risk. Even worse, both people and corporations typically don't disclose their use of those devices when you enter their homes/businesses either.
simmerup | 22 hours ago
Sure you can just not buy the thing.
But can’t stop the fact that your wall down the street is documented by Amazon and Google front door bells
There is no opt out of this surveillance if you live in modern society
scubadude | 21 hours ago
chaostheory | 21 hours ago
I like to call big tech, “Little Sister” since governments are “Big Brother”
TheOtherHobbes | 20 hours ago
And they both charge an annual subscription.
autoexec | 12 hours ago
_carbyau_ | 21 hours ago
https://valetudo.cloud/
Can't help with the rest unfortunately.
staplers | 23 hours ago
dylan604 | 23 hours ago
munk-a | 22 hours ago
hrimfaxi | 20 hours ago
expedition32 | 23 hours ago
Xiol | 22 hours ago
Meta RayBans, deservedly.
iso-logi | 22 hours ago
Take a walk down whatever area has the best night life near you and you will see tons of people wearing meta glasses. It's so common.
malfist | 21 hours ago
idiotsecant | 20 hours ago
john_strinlai | 22 hours ago
today i learned this word has a definition outside of cryptography. it appears to be UK slang for pedophile.
paxys | 23 hours ago
winddude | 23 hours ago
miltonlost | 23 hours ago
gus_massa | 22 hours ago
> [dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130 .
More info: 1439 points | 6 days ago | 838 comments
themafia | 20 hours ago
It would probably help if Meta admitted it did wrong and wasn't fighting it in court.
paulbgd | 19 hours ago
paxys | 23 hours ago
munk-a | 23 hours ago
donmcronald | 20 hours ago
munk-a | 3 hours ago
thegrim33 | 23 hours ago
magicalist | 23 hours ago
Weird way to say workers given anonymity for whistleblowing interviewed by two reporters and not denied by meta in their response?
m4rtink | 22 hours ago
clickety_clack | 21 hours ago
Bender | 21 hours ago
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sVTm608LBg [video][50m]
emsign | 21 hours ago
h4kunamata | 21 hours ago
We have been telling people to stay away from big USA tech companies and what they do??
Buy a smart glass from said company!!
No symphaty, and knowing how the system works, these videos will never be deleted and will move from one hanf to another, until somebody leaks them online or request money.
People never learn!!!
woodpanel | 21 hours ago
iJohnDoe | 21 hours ago
ginkgotree | 21 hours ago
gdevenyi | 20 hours ago
hknceykbx | 12 hours ago
jamesjolliffe | 11 hours ago
Snowfield9571 | 32 minutes ago
Facebook/Meta pays teens to install a VPN so they can snoop on user traffic and decrypts competitors traffic (Snapchat) under guidance of Zuckerberg himself. [1]
Facebook/Meta covertly backdoors users phones [2]
Facebook requests phone number for 2FA and then uses for ads/tracking without disclosure [3]
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/26/facebook-secret-project-sn...
[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20260116094503/https://localmess....
[3] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/press-release/file/1186...