New posters are going up in London - love them.
-
@Wen They were recently used during the police action in Delhi
@Wen some footage... https://mstdn.plus/@kapil_pilankar/116992116877906485
-
New posters are going up in London - love them.
edit - a variant shows a different image as you move
@Wen Apparently Meta keeps making it harder to hide the recording LED. Although I'm sure there's a special firmware for the likes of Zucc and company.
-
@Wen Apparently Meta keeps making it harder to hide the recording LED. Although I'm sure there's a special firmware for the likes of Zucc and company.
@AgentOrange96 Or even a little Tippex?
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
@tmcfarlane @Wen legally mandate them to be bright orange, IMO.
-
@Wen @tmcfarlane I’m completely against them as there is another issue here that gets lost in the discussion about pervo-glasses and consent: for them to work *as intended* for people who are visually impaired and can be said to have a legitimate need, the images need to be uploaded to and interpreted by Meta’s AI. Som of us have made a deliberate choice to avoid all Meta products, and do not wish to have our images (or the sounds of our voices, for that matter) on any Meta servers for any reason. People using these glasses have no way of knowing who around them has taken such a stand, unless they seek active consent from everyone around them before using the glasses.
Now, smart glasses from ethical companies may have an important role to play in increasing accessibility. But as far as I know, those don’t exist yet.
> Now, smart glasses from ethical companies may have an important role to play in increasing accessibility. But as far as I know, those don’t exist yet.
Last time when I was posting on 'pervert glasses', specifically the meta/rayban thing, I came to discuss accessiblity aspects with @elettrona who deliberately chose to avoid Meta, and found a good company in https://letsenvision.com
Their careful design makes bystanders aware what the glasses are doing. I do not know how they deal with cloud connection, but I see that they partner with Google.
-
@tmcfarlane @Wen legally mandate them to be bright orange, IMO.
-
> Now, smart glasses from ethical companies may have an important role to play in increasing accessibility. But as far as I know, those don’t exist yet.
Last time when I was posting on 'pervert glasses', specifically the meta/rayban thing, I came to discuss accessiblity aspects with @elettrona who deliberately chose to avoid Meta, and found a good company in https://letsenvision.com
Their careful design makes bystanders aware what the glasses are doing. I do not know how they deal with cloud connection, but I see that they partner with Google.
@smallcircles @fgraver @Wen @tmcfarlane Yes I confirm they use gemini. But there are also other glasses around, Fovionics (from Brazil) and Agiga echovision (from the USA) but those aren't available in European market yet.
Another solution for blind people, but not completely affordable, is Orcam - https://orcam.com - it works offline and has no AI. It's a small device you can attach to ANY traditional pair of glasses. Maybe not for European, but there are going to be alternatives to Meta, I think it's matter of time. I find it a risk to rely on Meta if you have accessibility needs, despite someone says they're the best. My ex who's blind too, bought them. And likes them. But I didn't say anything, it's his own business if Meta then decides something else and switches accessibility down.
Btw, my main worries are that if for guide dogs laws give some warranty, there should be more protection for blind as well, when using AI-driven devices. With a long, accurate, privacy explanation. Everyone of us has the right to choose these techs as an aid, but only if aware of pros and cons. -
New posters are going up in London - love them.
edit - a variant shows a different image as you move
OBEY
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
If they are for vision get them from an ophthalomologist, not from the pervert store.
-
The perverts already are in Trump's case
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
The problem you are missing is that these glasses are hooked upto one of the world's most corrupt company servers.
I'd only be ok for licenses to blind people if the servers and glasses were in public ownership and the code open source.
-
The problem you are missing is that these glasses are hooked upto one of the world's most corrupt company servers.
I'd only be ok for licenses to blind people if the servers and glasses were in public ownership and the code open source.
@monkeyben @Wen I'm not missing it, I'm weighing it
-
@Wen I'm so torn on this. I feel like they need to be licensable for the blind and partially sighted. But your average pervert has no business walking around with them
On one hand, I would take a page from dog training on this one.
You do not teach a dog to jump up on people on command until you have established a foundation of not jumping up on people.
A good set of glasses for blind and partially sighted people needs to be introduced AFTER the pervert glasses problem has been resolved.
On the other, THESE glasses should not be licencable. THESE glasses are a nightmare, and we can do better, with actual respect for privacy and consent. Preferably backed by a company not known for "Move fast and break things"
-
On one hand, I would take a page from dog training on this one.
You do not teach a dog to jump up on people on command until you have established a foundation of not jumping up on people.
A good set of glasses for blind and partially sighted people needs to be introduced AFTER the pervert glasses problem has been resolved.
On the other, THESE glasses should not be licencable. THESE glasses are a nightmare, and we can do better, with actual respect for privacy and consent. Preferably backed by a company not known for "Move fast and break things"
@Epic_Null @Wen cool, we'll send you round to confiscate them from the blind users that are getting on with their lives.
-
@Epic_Null @Wen cool, we'll send you round to confiscate them from the blind users that are getting on with their lives.
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null I don’t believe is what was that being argued at al.
-
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null I don’t believe is what was that being argued at al.
@Wen @Epic_Null how are you interpreting the word "ban"?
-
@Wen @Epic_Null how are you interpreting the word "ban"?
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null As the removal of devices without controlled and regulated functionality.
-
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null As the removal of devices without controlled and regulated functionality.
@Wen @Epic_Null ...which implies the removal of devices in use as assistive technology to blind and partially sighted users (assuming there's no license/exemption, as being argued above).
It's great that there are alternatives, and if a ban helps assistive users transition to those then great (but maybe consult those users). -
@Wen @Epic_Null ...which implies the removal of devices in use as assistive technology to blind and partially sighted users (assuming there's no license/exemption, as being argued above).
It's great that there are alternatives, and if a ban helps assistive users transition to those then great (but maybe consult those users).@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null No it does not. What is does is require restrictions on their use outwith of that.
-
@tmcfarlane @Epic_Null No it does not. What is does is require restrictions on their use outwith of that.
@Wen if you "ban" with no exemptions (as suggested by the other poster above), no one can use them. That's literally what the word implies.
