In the stone age of qrcode scanners, the scanner would enter the phone number directly into the dial app. All you needed to do was hit dial. Very convenient… When we were young little shits we would print qrcodes containing the android factory reset dial codes because those didn’t need hitting dial to trigger.
Dumb glasses
Submitted 21 hours ago by gedaliyah@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5d91f9b0-ac01-42b4-8256-e4dbdfcd5953.png
Comments
Nomad@infosec.pub 16 hours ago
mrnobody@reddthat.com 21 hours ago
I’m think I’m going to make a shirt that says, “Don’t scan me” so that all the flock, security systems, etc auto scan, but humans hopefully wouldn’t. Obviously if they did they’d be idiots.
It would be nice if it were a simple reboot command or something harmless, but it’d cause me to essentially be invisible walking through an area as every camera would reboot and go offline a couple minutes.
Makes me chuckle as it’d puzzle anyone reviewing the footage!
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 17 hours ago
If only it were so easy.
whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 hours ago
Sue them under CFAA for accessing a site they weren’t granted permission to access, brick their device and take their money
lumen@feddit.nl 21 hours ago
This is so stupid. In public, in most countries you have no right not to be filmed. And you certainly can’t destroy someone else’s device.
I know this post is a joke. But whoever actually has a problem with being filmed in public should stay home.
ieatpwns@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
If you’re holding a camera all good I can see you’re definitely trying to record me. If you’re trying to be slick and record me with your secret little spy glasses I literally couldn’t care less about what’s legal or not.
lumen@feddit.nl 21 hours ago
Plus, the law doesn’t concern your feelings. It doesn’t matter if you like something or not, if it’s legal, it’s legal.
lumen@feddit.nl 21 hours ago
There are cameras everywhere anyways. Don’t act a way you want on film if you’re outside your home, otherwise there’s a chance it’s being recorded and there’s nothing you can do about it 🤷
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 21 hours ago
What an interesting opinion you have, that as long as you break no laws, everyone who doesn’t like your behaviour should be intimidated into not leaving the house for work, medicine, or food.
lumen@feddit.nl 21 hours ago
The only thing I’m saying is that legal things are legal, even if the consequences might make certain people feel bad. We can all use the public space however we like. I can film secretly on the sidewalk, and you can go grocery shopping, and the next person could shout about his religious beliefs, while the next person could be skateboarding.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
Just because you don’t have a legal right not to be filmed without your consent doesn’t mean that you don’t have a moral right not to be filmed without your consent
zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours ago
If you’re actually puzzled, then you’re a moron. The vast majority of people clearly strongly dislike these things and you’re everywhere in this thread defending them. Are you being paid for your services or do you just love the surveillance state that much?
lumen@feddit.nl 20 hours ago
I love my freedoms. And I understand that in order to have your own freedoms, you have to respect other people having theirs. You all seem to think more in line with “freedom for me, but not for thee”. And so far, no one has produced any arguments outside of something based on their feelings.
gray@lemmy.ml 20 hours ago
I don’t know where you live, but all kinds of filming in public is not in fact legal (and either way it shouldn’t be): firstpost.com/…/japan-ban-upskirting-sex-crime-re…
lumen@feddit.nl 20 hours ago
Interesting. Where I live, no such ban exists. Sure it could be a good idea to ban some public filming, but where do you draw the line? I think that’s pretty much impossible to do right now
NullPointerException@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
If the camera is hidden, how can you prevent unauthorized filming? Restroom, changing rooms, even schools or children playgrounds, beaches?
Sure, a beach is public, so that authorizes me to film your wife’s butt or your kid? That’s not how it works.
FishFace@piefed.social 20 hours ago
Did you know that on the public beach, I can look at your wife’s butt, or your kids, with my very own eyes? Why does recording it cause you any greater harm than looking with my eyes?
Is it because it involves technology? Is it because it implies I’m too interested in what I see, so it makes you feel uncomfortable?
lumen@feddit.nl 20 hours ago
Preventing unauthorised filming has been a problem for a long time now, that existed before Meta Ray-Ben did.
If you’re on a public beach, I can film your wife’s butt and your kid and choose to do so either secretly or visibly. I know that this comment will be downvoted to oblivion because people don’t like this fact, but it’s a fact nonetheless.
ICastFist@programming.dev 18 hours ago
In Brazil, and I suppose most EU countries, every individual has the rights to their own image, as in, I cannot take a picture of you, or one that clearly identifies you, without your consent. If I use it for commercial purposes, I may also need to reach an agreement of some sort with you. Save a few exceptions, such as people walking on the background of a live reporter, a person has rights to ask for their likeness to be removed or blurred.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 15 hours ago
I don’t care about being filmed in public. After all I’m in public, if I want privacy I’ll go somewhere else.
Obligatory fuck meta though.
Encephalotrocity@feddit.online 2 hours ago
if I want privacy I’ll go somewhere else.
Because they absolutely could not just follow you.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 2 hours ago
People could do that before meta glasses. I’m not talking about governments here. I’m talking about regular people and you have no illusion of privacy in public. Pretty common sense that.
imjustmsk@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
I don’t know, but it would be wierd if someone’s stalking you in public though, So yea having all these footages that can be stitched together which says wherever you go…
(this is a stupid hyper hypothetical scenario I made up, not that meta would be interested to do all that work just to track a person)
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 15 hours ago
People could do that before bro. Phone, DSLR, etc.
You have no assumption of privacy in public. If this hypothetical stalker is following you then they’ll do that with or without meta glasses.
mrnobody@reddthat.com 19 hours ago
paranoid@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Risky click of the day!
For the curious, it’s a link to a petition to ban these glasses. And while I absolutely hate these glasses and want legislation limiting them in at least some capacity, I don’t know that it will be successful - it is perfectly legal to photograph and record people in public (where there is “no expectation of privacy”).
The fact that there is no indication when they are in use is concerning, and something there should be laws around (although, thinking it through a bit more, there’s no indicator on, say, a cellphone). The petition mentions audio consent laws, which is another potential avenue for legislation, but not all states have two party consent (where everyone involved in a recorded conversation knows it’s being recorded).
In my humble opinion, as some dude writing a comment on the internet, is that the best chance for legislation would be around connecting personal data with the data recorded by the glasses. The scenario I’m thinking of is something like “hey slopbot, what are the names and addresses of everyone I’ve seen today”. It would then link the recording to other public images of you, which would likely provide a name, and then search those people finder sites and get all of that, as well as your previous addresses, family members, phone numbers, arrest history, and a list of fears.
I hate all of this
mrnobody@reddthat.com 17 hours ago
Haha yeah my bad no context.
My concern and reason for signing was, my kid in hs said a guy in class was using them, joking about use for a test. Then someone commented if he was uploading pics of his gf yet (popular girl I assume)and I really grew concerned. I totally get kids joking around, but at the point of under age limit, where do you draw the line is the device is always recording data? You could make moderators unintentionally view CP to a degree.
Yes, “public” doesn’t immediately scream privacy, however, when i walk around the city, NOBODY knows who I am. They won’t remember my face, don’t know my name, address, etc. So, there’s privacy from humans since we don’t all wear name tags with our phone number or address.
Overhearing a conversion is one thing, but recording it is a whole other issue! What about self incrimination? What about no consent from being recorded? I think of a show, Impractical Jokers, where they do a lot of stuff in public, and sometimes faces are blurred likely bc that person didn’t consent. Why would these social media stuff be any different?!
Idk, I think It’s awful, and worse so since Zuck pushed back on the lawsuit to get gov regulation in social media and age verification. To me, they’re buying politicians left and right, so they’ll get their way, but it’s “security theater” action basically. Especially data harvesting! Nothing more.
RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
I kinda want to glue a huge camera to a pair of goggles and paint a huge facebok/meta logo on it. Then i will walk around public places and go “what?” when people confront me.
farting_gorilla@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Sounds like something Dom Joly would do :)
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
I saw these on the Canadian version of The Price is Right
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
why would you make smart glasses across process QR codes automatically? or even at all
Hiro8811@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Just print the Epstein list on the shirt
Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
My god hes disappeared
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 18 hours ago
Is goatse.cx still around? Have that in QR for the meta glasses.
Juliee@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
That would be pretty cool.
Generally guys I am migrating to the countryside. I think that cities are cooked and this is just another confirmation.
acme401@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 16 hours ago
They’re moving away because capitalism makes them unaffordable. It has very little to do with how easy it is to grow food or “live” in a city…
StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
These comments are a cesspit
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
I mean hidden cameras have been a thing for many decades, if not a century. There’s nothing new here, zuckerberg pretending he invented something is an old cliche at this point too.
ramble81@lemmy.zip 20 hours ago
I’ve always been of the opinion that AR glasses could actually be really cool if done right. Imagine being at a conference or mixer and seeing a persons name and part of their LinkedIn pop up next to them, or be at a sporting event and have stats pop up for the specific player, or your own personal instant replay. Or being at an art museum and have history of the art and artist pop up.
But instead, we get it for seritipitous surveillance and feeding the AI slop machine…
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Jesus fucking Christ, what a nightmare.
ramble81@lemmy.zip 19 hours ago
Why? If you’re at a business conference the understanding is that you’re networking with people in your field and you may not be able to remember everything about everyone. Why not be armed with information to help drive conversations and interactions.
FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Fuck real life networking applications.
But dude, the museum thing is rad. Also fishing – look at the water and learn the cfs and temp. Look at the fish you caught and get species and measurements. Or field dressing a deer or putting a part on a car – where you need to cut or bolt is highlighted.
I want all of the people/personal info stuff left out, but i still want all of the practical shit.