To be honest, I don't really see what's there to be outraged about.<p>(1) Don't v-loggers already walk around with a camera like in "first-person"?<p>(2) A Quest 3 headset is really obvious, so one can't be stealthy with it.<p>(3) Why should the cafe's address be blanked out?<p>The article also seems to assume that public Quest 3 users are attention-seeking, while I think they're just having fun using AR in public. I don't see why one should feel bad wearing a headset around.
I mean the time to be upset about being recorded in public was before nearly every square inch of (populated) western civilization had a security camera pointed at it. You can go to pretty much any random place in any major US city and would be able to find a camera recording you. Until we agree to start tearing that all that down I'm not sure what the point of being upset about this is.
Phones do all that already, long time ago. Web tracking also that done by Verge is worse in terms of privacy damage than private people taking photos and videos.<p>The engineered click-baity outrage killer google glass - a curious fun product.<p>To put it bluntly journalists who push the “glasshole” narrative are attention-seeking parroting assholes.
People don’t care about public recording as much as they did
at the time of the glass launch.<p>The ubiquity of the smartphone camera and the public revelations about government surveillance did much to normalize recording in public.<p>It would be nice to establish norms and laws around anonymization of facial recordings and the need to auto-blur.<p>But I wouldn’t count on public outrage to hold the line on recording. I don’t anticipate the degree of public backlash we saw with glass.
If meta adds a head automatically to everyone else you interact with that is wearing one such that you can not tell they aren’t also in VR, that would be awesome for party games.
Is it just me or is this article fairly scattered and confusing?<p>First off I’ve never heard of these supposed “glass holes” before so either their hype failed or the title has mismatched expectations with the zeitgeist (“have arrived”). They proceed to show several tweets of people using them but don’t provide a polished critique of their own (at least not up front). It also felt like a more accurate description about what makes these different from Oculus headsets would have been nice.<p>I’ll admit to not having finished the article. It was just really poorly written in my opinion. Maybe someone else can point out what it is that makes it so seemingly unpolished and tabloid-like? I’m having trouble with it.
I really hope tech gets so good in the future, camera will automatically generate a new high quality face in countries where it's prohibited to film someone so that gdpr/similar laws are unaffected. Maybe even include a dataset of known ppl/friends that agreed to be filmed so that their face will be unaltered