Thoughts on privacy focused smart glasses?
from guymontag@lemmy.ml to privacy@lemmy.ml on 22 May 01:20
https://lemmy.ml/post/47673536

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.

#privacy

threaded - newest

StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today on 22 May 01:30 next collapse

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 on 22 May 05:46 next collapse

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 on 22 May 14:00 collapse

Literally Black Mirror

<img alt="" src="https://filmfilicos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Critca-de-Black-Mirror-White-Christmas-2014-filmfilicos-blog-de-cine..jpg">

The special episode “White Christmas”

the_abecedarian@piefed.social on 22 May 01:37 next collapse

nah. no way to know what strangers are doing with them

southsamurai@sh.itjust.works on 22 May 01:46 next collapse

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”

BingBong@sh.itjust.works on 22 May 01:50 next collapse

No. Absolutely no interest in 24/7 being plugged in.

pierre_delecto@hexbear.net on 22 May 01:55 next collapse

It would be at best, privacy for the viewer/owner but not for the viewed. Why would you buy always seeing glasses to protect the privacy of those you see?

There is no such thing as a privacy respecting camera you are pointing at others.

NightFantom@slrpnk.net on 22 May 02:27 next collapse

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.

actionjbone@sh.itjust.works on 22 May 03:04 next collapse

There are no “privacy-focused” smart glasses. In fact, all of them are the exact opposite.

Kirk@startrek.website on 22 May 11:54 collapse

“I want a way to record the young ladies at the gym without Meta knowing about it”

BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk on 23 May 20:18 collapse

I’d like a hud, don’t really care about cameras.

yellerbadger@piefed.social on 22 May 02:57 next collapse

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 on 22 May 06:07 collapse

Dumb question, but what are smart glasses with no camera?

utopiah@lemmy.ml on 22 May 07:33 collapse

HUD, head up display, being able to have information displayed on the move without using your hands.

LeapSecond@lemmy.zip on 22 May 04:14 next collapse

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 on 22 May 05:12 next collapse

That there is an oxymoron.

Libb@piefed.social on 22 May 05:01 next collapse

I would like no smart glasses at all.

‘Privacy focused focused smart glasses’ sounds as credible as ‘your friendly stalker neighbor’.

libre_warrior@lemmy.ml on 22 May 05:47 next collapse

Lets not normalize [smart] glasses.

divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works on 22 May 08:24 next collapse

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 on 22 May 08:58 collapse

talk of companies self regulating always lights up alerts in my head

divingdonkey@sh.itjust.works on 22 May 09:55 collapse

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 on 22 May 18:25 collapse

i’m struggling to understand how this could be enforced at all

geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml on 22 May 10:05 collapse

Why not? AR glasses which don’t film the environment but just give a HUD would be rad.

libre_warrior@lemmy.ml on 22 May 10:44 next collapse

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 on 22 May 19:46 collapse

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.

robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net on 22 May 06:12 next collapse

normalize punching glassholes if you want privacy in a “smart glasses” world

utopiah@lemmy.ml on 22 May 07:30 next collapse

There are some already, e.g. docs.brilliant.xyz with firmware you can replace or mentraglass.com and I even made one by sticking a RPi with its tiny camera on 3D printed frames …benetou.fr/…/1449023602079240194/

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/01df7a86-eadf-487e-bacb-0bed3cbb1c6d.png">

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.

iByteABit@lemmy.ml on 22 May 10:51 next collapse

Keep the creep glasses where they belong, in the bottom of a garbage can

francois@jlai.lu on 22 May 10:56 next collapse

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

defrostedLasagna4921@piefed.zip on 22 May 11:27 next collapse

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 on 23 May 20:42 collapse

we don’t want you or anyone else to document our lives.

defrostedLasagna4921@piefed.zip on 25 May 19:06 collapse

Don’t worry, that isn’t something that I try to do.

WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works on 25 May 20:36 collapse

not what you try to do, but what would be happening if you would be recording everywhere you go.

Sxan@piefed.zip on 22 May 11:54 next collapse

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.

musket528@sopuli.xyz on 22 May 12:05 next collapse

if you only use them at your home alone, that’s fine

toomuchrdio@retrolemmy.com on 22 May 13:55 next collapse

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

pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 22 May 14:14 next collapse

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 on 22 May 14:26 next collapse

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 on 22 May 20:47 next collapse

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 on 23 May 03:34 collapse

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 on 23 May 13:47 collapse

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 on 23 May 02:22 collapse

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.

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 on 23 May 03:31 collapse

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.

pound_heap@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 22 May 14:27 collapse

Oh, and all that applies not just to camera, but also to microphone. Damn, such a good topic to talk about.

pineapple@lemmy.ml on 23 May 00:14 next collapse

I don’t need another source of distraction. My phone is distracting enough I don’t need to have a HUD like that constantly.

northernlights@lemmy.today on 23 May 02:20 next collapse

I would never trust them, no matter the claim.

phoenixz@lemmy.ca on 23 May 14:30 next collapse

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

belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org on 23 May 17:10 next collapse

If they are screens for viewing something with no camera, that already exists. “Smart glasses” as they were are tools for creeps to video everyone against their will

PierceTheBubble@lemmy.ml on 23 May 20:04 next collapse

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…

[deleted] on 24 May 10:40 collapse

.