Meta Now Forces AI Data Collection Through Ray-Ban Smart Glasses (theverge.com) 45
Meta has eliminated key privacy protections for Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses users in a policy update that took effect April 29th. The company now permanently enables Meta AI with camera functionality unless "Hey Meta" voice commands are completely disabled, while simultaneously removing users' ability to opt out of having their voice recordings stored in the cloud.
These recordings are kept for up to a year for Meta's product development, with the company only deleting accidental voice interactions after 90 days. Users can manually delete individual recordings but cannot prevent the initial collection.
These recordings are kept for up to a year for Meta's product development, with the company only deleting accidental voice interactions after 90 days. Users can manually delete individual recordings but cannot prevent the initial collection.
Well who could have seen that coming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, who could have seen that Meta would alter the deal post-purchase in this way?
Answer: everyone.
Fuck Meta, and Fuck Zuckerberg.
Re:Well who could have seen that coming? (Score:5, Funny)
"I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further" -Darth Zuck
Re: (Score:3)
Did they really alter the deal if the thing the user agrees to when they start using it is "We can change the deal at any point"?
Re: Well who could have seen that coming? (Score:2)
That's usually how service agreements and EULAs work. The one writing it gets to put various escape hatches in it. This maybe less effective for a service than for a physical product or piece of software.
What the agreement can't normally do is let Meta go back to a prior date and grab your recordings. But going forward, if you continue to use their service then you have to agree to new terms. If you want to use fancy sunglasses that require a service, then you don't have a winning choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they really alter the deal if the thing the user agrees to when they start using it is "We can change the deal at any point"?
Have a look at the terms and conditions of your credit card sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the joke I was looking for. Mod funnier, though it isn't really funny. Too true to laugh.
How did "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" become "BS, More BS, and 'What's in it for me?'"?
At least America had a fantasy of greatness. Now we have a cheap blackmailer in chief and millions of kids who want to grow up to be just like him.
Re: (Score:1)
Pssst... (Score:5, Insightful)
Meta and Zuckerberg are not your friends ... pass it on.
I for one am SHOCKED. (Score:3)
Shocked that this wasn't already turned on the moment the glasses were put out.
Now, I'm of two opinions about this. One? If people actually researched this and purchased these glasses after finding that there was a way to use them without AI data collection turned on, and that was important in their purchasing decision, then they should have the option of returning them for a full refund. However, they also purchased a product wholly owned by a corporation known to continually tie up user privacy in the basement and rape it fast and hard, so they're kinda getting what nearly anyone with a shred of an idea about what Meta is would expect them to get for trusting Meta.
If they're like typical end-users? They didn't care that it wasn't already doing this, and will shrug off that it turned this on on them after the fact with a giant, "Meh." So, uh, Meta peeps getting Meta'ed yet again is kinda a head nod and move on story these days. You climb into bed with a well-known parasite, you can't be surprised when it crawls inside you.
Re:I for one am SHOCKED. (Score:4, Insightful)
Shocked that this wasn't already turned on the moment the glasses were put out.
I'm not. They don't want to call attention to this kind of thing at product launch, because it risks having fewer people buy in.
I know it's hard to believe, but there are people smart enough to object to this shit, who are also dumb enough to not make that tiny intuitive leap that this shit is almost certainly going to happen when you buy into cloud-dependent devices.
If the hardware relies on a service, then you're gonna get serviced. The providers don't much care whether you think of yourself as a customer or a heifer - either way, you're paying them to fuck you (over).
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem they determined the user-growth in smart glasses wasn't happening, or wasn't important enough, compared to their data-collection/AI endeavors.
Re:I for one am SHOCKED. (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't appear to consider the cost to everyone who didn't buy the glasses, but encounters someone wearing them.
I suppose jamming the signal is illegal. Anything else is too late to avoid violation. And these are disguised in comparison to the earlier models (for which the term "glasshole" was coined).
Re: (Score:2)
You don't appear to consider the cost to everyone who didn't buy the glasses, but encounters someone wearing them.
This is the thing that people saying things like "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public" seem unable to grasp. There is a massive and qualitative difference between casual social observations that would naturally occur but naturally be forgotten just as quickly and the systematic, global scale, permanently recorded, machine-analysed surveillance orchestrated by the likes of Google and Meta. Privacy norms and (if you're lucky) laws supporting them developed for the former environment and ar
Illinois is a two party state. (Score:2)
As in, both parties to phone call (and maybe even a conversation? IANAL) must consent to be recording in order not to violate wiretapping laws.
Put more bluntly, simply wearing these in Illinois in the presence of someone who answered a phone call could subject you to criminal prosecution. The fact that the recording would be deleted in 90 days is irrelevant; making the recording in the first place is illegal without the consent of both parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Put more bluntly, simply wearing these in Illinois in the presence of someone who answered a phone call could subject you to criminal prosecution. The fact that the recording would be deleted in 90 days is irrelevant; making the recording in the first place is illegal without the consent of both parties.
And of course Meta legalese places all legal liability on the customer.
"To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to defend (at our request), indemnify and hold harmless Meta and its affiliates from and against all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneysâ(TM) fees and costs) arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your purchase or use of the MPT Products"
Re: I for one am SHOCKED. (Score:3)
"If people actually researched this and purchased these glasses after finding that there was a way to use them without AI data collection turned on, and that was important in their purchasing decision, then they should have the option of returning them for a full refund."
I'm off two options about THAT. If people accept licenses that allow modifying the deal then they deserve what they get. But on the other hand, licenses which allow that should be illegal, or at least the party not changing the license shou
Re: (Score:2)
someone needs to learn you the difference between a LICENSE and a CONTRACT.
No, someone needs to prohibit all licenses which are not contracts. No non-contract license should exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocked that this wasn't already turned on the moment the glasses were put out.
I might be able to offer some context behind that. Google Glass was a huge PR disaster, the big pain-point being about data collection. It's not that surprising coming from that angle.
That said, you are absolutely correct that Meta's hunger for data is legendary. That's why I won't buy stock in them. Think of what an epic Facebook data leak could look like.
Does it record other people? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think I might develop a compulsary anxious reaction of slapping those glasses from people wearing them near me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
In Sweden you need permission from everyone you film if it's not for private use so those glasses are breaking GDPR
Re: (Score:2)
There's always been a slight tension with "street photography", with proponents emphasising the public nature of the place, and the value of the art that is produced, while opponents emphasis the rights of the unwitting participants.
With the abundance of camera phones anyone on the street is quite likely to be caught in someone else's photo or recording. Asking for, or demanding permission is less feasible.
And then with smart glasses, and a potentially continuous recording of everything the wearer's face is
"Forced"? By zucko the droid himself? (Score:1)
How so?
Just checked my muzzle in the mirror, no facebook "smart glasses" on it, no way to force me to do anything. Then checked my saved passwords lists - no facebook/instagram/wacap accounts. Apparently I even have a block on the router for facebook shit, built and maintained for free by some good people.
If you don't want it, nobody can force it on you.
Re: (Score:2)
some clever defelopers should (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I just use my :CueCat to scan everyone's faces. Hold still.
Re: (Score:2)
I just use my :CueCat to scan everyone's faces. Hold still.
That brings back memories. That thing was about as dumb an idea as the i-Opener.
So as the internet fills up with AI slop (Score:3)
This means big companies that control your real data and know the difference between it and AI slop because they control the user interface and can algorithmically tell what a human being is generating real content are going to be the only ones who can have working ai and models.
We need to stop thinking of AI as software and start thinking of it as capital. It's going to be something that gets owned and it's going to be owned by a very very small handful of extremely powerful companies that control the platforms we use to interact with the world digitally.
I don't know what you want to do with that knowledge but I just want people to have it.
Privacy Rapist being Privacy Rapist (Score:2)
"Who could ask for anything more?"
It's a shame Peter Falk died (Score:2)
What is it with tech companies and consent? (Score:3)
The leaders of these companies are terrible humans, and their workers that follow along are also just as evil. They are at best malicious stalkers.
1984 (Score:1)
Well...perhaps... (Score:4, Interesting)
Have your computer screen cycling through multiple screensavers, and have the glasses rest watching the screen.
It's probably easily filterable, though. Maybe that screensaver that displays random internet image sites. Or could you set it up to watch random steams from Pronhub? (Including, e.g., tubgirl and that site that used to be posted on /. all the time.)
tinfoil (Score:2)
i have gotten old and realized, i can use a tin foil bodysuit.
Be careful !!! (Score:1)
GDPR (Score:2)
'nuff said
Fortunately, illegal in Europe (Score:2)
In Germany, even possession of this is illegal, as it counts as "covert listening device".