It’s solvable if you take surveillance capitalism out of the equation, just as Valve are doing. AR with Meta behind it will never be something that is socially acceptable since their whole business model is selling out the user and everyone around them. With a company like Valve which has a pretty good track record regarding privacy (a.k.a the only things transferred regarding usage are what games you play to make store recommendations fit your taste and bug reports if you approve them) i can see a wider adoption taking place.
I don’t think that’s true, your personal privacy as the owner of the device is one thing, everyone else’s right to not be continuously photographed is another. Having Valve operate it over meta doesn’t solve that. Also, what happens when Gabe does and the investment bank that buys it decides they want to sell everyone data to maximise profit?
These things can be done in a privacy respecting way for other parties too. The computational power needed to realize a person is in the field of view and to process this person saying “i consent” is in everyones pocket nowadays.
I think if you can plan for somehow allowing concent for these things then you can also plan for bypassing it. Also it would need to film you to work out if you don’t consent and then it’s already breached the consent.
There’s a difference between passively waiting for a voice command by a person identified in RAM and storing these things. And sure, there will always be people breaking the rules, but if you actually try to make the product secure, the vast amount of people will NOT be fucking around with that.
Take Metas PervGlasses for example: There’s a LED that shows it is recording. You can remove that light with a simple dremel, and no one at Meta even thought about implementing a simple check like making the LED flash a OTP code to be recognized by the camera at the start of recording. It makes a whole lot of difference who is developing these things, trust me.
It’s solvable if you take surveillance capitalism out of the equation, just as Valve are doing. AR with Meta behind it will never be something that is socially acceptable since their whole business model is selling out the user and everyone around them. With a company like Valve which has a pretty good track record regarding privacy (a.k.a the only things transferred regarding usage are what games you play to make store recommendations fit your taste and bug reports if you approve them) i can see a wider adoption taking place.
I don’t think that’s true, your personal privacy as the owner of the device is one thing, everyone else’s right to not be continuously photographed is another. Having Valve operate it over meta doesn’t solve that. Also, what happens when Gabe does and the investment bank that buys it decides they want to sell everyone data to maximise profit?
These things can be done in a privacy respecting way for other parties too. The computational power needed to realize a person is in the field of view and to process this person saying “i consent” is in everyones pocket nowadays.
I think if you can plan for somehow allowing concent for these things then you can also plan for bypassing it. Also it would need to film you to work out if you don’t consent and then it’s already breached the consent.
There’s a difference between passively waiting for a voice command by a person identified in RAM and storing these things. And sure, there will always be people breaking the rules, but if you actually try to make the product secure, the vast amount of people will NOT be fucking around with that.
Take Metas PervGlasses for example: There’s a LED that shows it is recording. You can remove that light with a simple dremel, and no one at Meta even thought about implementing a simple check like making the LED flash a OTP code to be recognized by the camera at the start of recording. It makes a whole lot of difference who is developing these things, trust me.