[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.

[dgellow]

Yeah, definitely difficult to envision how something like that would work if you have live crowd processing. FWIW someone close to me has a similar problem, I’ve seen how annoying it can be. I can see how a wearable would help but anything with cameras is causing friction with people expectation of privacy. I don’t know the correct way to balance that in your case, other than explicitly asking for consent before recording

[drdaeman]

To reiterate, my suggestion is to ignore the cameras and just focus on regulation and prohibition of actually harmful activities - that is, publication without depicted persons explicit consent. If some tiktok shitheads abuse the public trust and upload derogatory videos - fine them into selling those glasses and then some, duh. Make that a very public case to send a "we don't tolerate this" message to others. This focuses and addresses actual, real issues, and leaves legitimate use cases unhindered.

That said, I understand that people subconsciously flinch at even a sight of a camera. I've had a guest wearing Meta glasses just the other day, and I felt a little irk - despite having a pro-camera position (although to be precise my concern there was with Meta, not the glasses themselves). Worse, it turned out that guest was a victim of domestic abuse, so they have an arguably good reason to have a camera ready at a glance.

Weird world, weird times.