[drdaeman]

Glasses’ camera [usually] sits right next to couple more cameras embedded in wearer’s skull. [Almost] nobody has any problem with those.

That strongly suggests me it’s not the cameras that are problematic, but something about what happens to the images.

[vkou]

Most people understand that the difference between your camera and your eyes is that one records an image, while the other records a very rough description of an image.

[drdaeman]

I don’t know how I could’ve made it even more obvious that cameras themselves don’t record anything.

[hootz]

I guess people wearing spy camera glasses won't do anything at all with the images! /s

[drdaeman]

My point is, people point at the camera but have actual issues with some potential capabilities of a system that’s not the camera itself but way downstream of it.

Can we please learn to point at correct things? I honestly don’t know what wrong with everyone. It’s like when people have issues with building permits and utility pricing but blame “AI” or “data centers” instead.

[hootz]

They are not exactly potential capabilities, but real capabilities already being used by people like obnoxious TikTokers to record them harassing people in public places without the person realizing they are being recorded.

If you need to put a camera on glasses for a legitimate reason, such as a device purely for accessibility, then you should be able to get an exception, of course.

[drdaeman]

“Potential” in a sense wearer’s actions are necessary to cause harm. Or vendor’s, for other risk scenarios. One has to not just have a camera but have that camera recording to a persistent medium and - most importantly - be an asshole to publish that recording inappropriately. That’s a few active steps away from having a camera.

> then you should be able to get an exception, of course

Of course not. Not when everyone reacts to the cameras themselves instead of TikTok uploads and whatever people are doing.

I just want legislation to ban the latter (as the actual harmful thing) and not the former (then maybe allow it on some sort of permit). But I’m sure it’ll be the opposite.

Which pisses me off because as a person who has difficulty with faces, for almost my whole adult life I’ve dreamed about a wearable that could make me aware when I see a person I know as I pass by (my brain doesn’t do that on its own). Strictly on-device, zero retention, no transmission, sure - I won’t buy e.g. Meta glasses or whatever until I know I can hack them to do the right thing. But of course there’ll be an argument that others aren’t supposed to know what my devices are doing, so ban them just in case because they make people uncomfortable.

We’re literally saying the same thing, pointing that the issue is with something that happens with the images/videos (TikToks)…

[dgellow]

> a wearable that could make me aware when I see a person I know as I pass by (my brain doesn’t do that on its own)

You can do that, just ask people for consent to be recorded/taken a picture

[drdaeman]

> consent to be recorded/taken a picture

Taking a reference face image for vectorization - certainly. If I'll have a wearable device, I wouldn't mind asking, even explaining the setup, risk assessment, and so on. Right now I apologize that I would most likely not remember person's face anyway. Although I shouldn't have to because you don't have to do it for functionally 100% equivalent thing with your eyes.

Continuously scanning faces for matches against a private library, on device, zero transmissions and everything decent and respectful - how do you imagine consenting? A balloon above my head with a banner that goes like "sorry folks the meat in my head is wacky, so there's a machine that eyeballs y'all - no recordings, just some real-time processing that doesn't transmit or long-term store any results"? Even something like that probably won't cut it for a consent.