I have this, and I cannot stress enough how much this use case is not worth being recorded and tracked in public against my consent
I have this, and I cannot stress enough how much this use case is not worth being recorded and tracked in public against my consent
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
There’s no reason it has to be one or the other, you’ve created a false dilemma. It’s perfectly possible to have the feature operate locally without recording / tracking.
pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Well, there is a reason, specific to these glasses. The reason is Meta.
If someone tells me they trust Meta not to break the law or violate their privacy, I assume they haven’t been paying attention to Meta in the news.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that we could use the hardware with 3rd party software. With the Quest line of VR headsets, Meta was pretty open to letting devs mess with the hardware. At least during the time I was using one.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not a false dilemma at all. I’m not comfortable with being recorded onto some rando’s hard drive either. It’s still recording and tracking me against my consent.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Still a false dilemma. Recording you against your wishes is already against the law in some countries, and not required for the feature to actually function.
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
How does facial recognition work without recording the faces it’s supposed to recognise?