this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
216 points (90.0% liked)

Technology

59092 readers
6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 91 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Clickbait warning. This has nothing to do with the Meta smart glasses. They're just a means of taking pictures of people without them noticing. But you could do the same with any internet connected camera / phone etc.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How does that automatically dox people? I have a load of photos of people who I got in the background. I don't magically know their names.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

they do some reverse image search on the internet and find your facebook profile or similar things.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not that I have a Facebook profile, but even if I did, that would only give them access to information that I made public.

Doxing requires you to release information that you otherwise would keep private.

It won't let them know my bank account details or my home address or my medical history or anything like that.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, as I said it's clickbait and not "proper" doxing. What I've been annoyed with are old newspaper articles. Sometimes you'll find some articles with a picture and a full name citing some sports achievements from when you were 17 or did some public activity with the boy scouts or some other club. Usually including pictures, full name and location. Which isn't great and you have less control over that than over a facebook or linkedin profile...

Sometimes an employer also has a "the team" page on their website with mugshots of everyone. That can be used to annoy people, stalk them or call the employer and so some nasty stuff.

I usually don't tell people my last name. Or I write pseudonomously on the internet, to make doxing a bit more complicated. And I don't post pictures of myself. That's all I can do. And quite some years ago I tried contacting some reverse image search providers. But it was difficult to get them to get rid of the pictures.

It's not necessarily just the information out there. Being able to connect it also makes people more vulnerable. I wouldn't call it doxing, though. That term has a meaning. Usually it has to include at least an address or an employer or some private information that isn't readily available.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Op has over 3800 posts in under a year. Yikes. Either bot or one smelly keyboard warrior

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Eh, they probably just have a feed and post a bunch all at once. I've seen other posters do something similar. Creating 10-15 lemmy posts/day isn't particularly hard if you're literally just copy/pasting links from an RSS feed.

[–] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Not saying it's difficult nor all that time consuming. If you are creating 10+ posts a days, rss feed or not you need to revaluate your free time. Essentially you're attempting to sway the opinions of strangers online, all day everyday there's no other reason for that many posts other than attempting to sway others opinions. And that's fucking lame dude

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] PrivacyDingus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it is annoying when they do that; i would, however, venture that these glasses probably give people a way of doing things more surreptitiously, even though this article doesn't explore that

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yeah, they mention that it's unsuspicious glasses by the look. We'll have to see what this comes to... When google introduced their Google glasses, people got yelled at on the streets, at least as far as I remember.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone actually got yelled at for wearing them. they were pretty rare to see. I know people who wore them all the time

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

One disabled guy who posted about it got physically attacked and his glasses broken.

[–] Bradley@programming.dev 2 points 4 weeks ago

Google Glass stood out like a sore thumb, especially when it was first introduced. These have a form factor that is based on traditional sunglasses.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Meta could build a set of glasses that lets me view Pluto, washes the dishes, and gives me a loving blowjob, and I wouldn't let them get within 10m of me.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What if it was an angry blowjob to sweeten the deal?

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

With a sandpaper tongue and diamond studded grilles.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Nope cant do it without the powdered Carolina ghost pepper water.

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 25 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Why do you need the glasses, can't you take the picture with your phone?

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because people get suspicious when somebody is taking pictures of every stranger they come across, but people looking at passersby while wearing glasses is normal.

[–] realharo@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

Just pretend to be a travel YouTuber, or a live streamer.

[–] Jesusaurus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

The glasses are just less obvious than me pointing my phone at you and snapping a picture

[–] rasakaf679@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

It isn't as obvious as shoving phone infront to take photos, whereas glasses are more incognito

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago
[–] Azureumbra@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's wild to me that this hasn't become the news of the day.

If I were RayBan I would jump ship right now before brand image is tanked. Why would you trust anyone wearing RayBans after this?

[–] realharo@lemm.ee 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can do this with any camera, including the one in all the phones out there. The only thing specific to the glasses is that it's more convenient and inconspicuous to be wearing it on your face.

Might as well have put the iPhone in the title for more clickbait. Anyone dedicated enough can make or buy tons of different kinds of wearables that could do the same.

The key issue is that such a database exists and is so easily searchable.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Now just imagine AI being given this type of access.

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I imagine they have this stuff internally classifying photos and faces.

Sure, facebook has been doing it for years. They build shadow profiles on people, allegedly 'only' (massive air quotes around that one) so if those people ever join they'll have links and photos and such already waiting for them.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have semi face-blindness, it takes several meetings before I can start recognising a person's face. Something like this would actually be a lifesaver for me, just so I can know who I'm talking to and whether I've met them before.

I don't have many issues, but my memory can sometimes suck, so I would also like something like this.

But not from Meta. I need to be 100% in control of the data before I'd ever feel comfortable wearing them in public.

[–] yournamehere@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

porn has driven every digital invention from vhs to web. metas stupid glasses will be sold out when you get a realtime nude-filter. coz then everyone would also accept ads in the fiel of view.

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The company behind Threads, which we've allowed to now infest the fediverse with little evident opposition. Cheers y'all.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 54 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have not noticed any threads content in Lemmy.

[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Almost every Lemmy instance blocked threads.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Exactly. In other words, they have not been "allowed to infest" the fediverse.

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I forgot Lemmy is the only ActivityPub platform.

[–] TheTetrapod@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only one worth using! Up top!

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

This. Mastodon is better than twitter by the virtue of not being a neo-nazi hangout spot owned by a hack. But it's still a twitter which was always shit celeb culture circlejerk

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 25 points 1 month ago

They have no power here.

[–] dumbass@leminal.space 1 points 1 month ago

You're welcome buddy!

load more comments
view more: next ›