See beyond cool: Facebook’s new smart glasses

The announcement of Facebook’s Ray-Ban Stories glasses that capture audio and video is a technological triumph that adds yet another facet to the privacy debate. Although the product is new, the issues it raises date back over a century.

Google Glass was the first effort to make commonly available image capturing glasses. I remember when, in 2014, the doors of the elevator I was driving opened and a young man wearing Google Glass entered. The unique looking glasses were a gift. The other elevator passengers were a mixture of wonder and suspicion. I asked, “Are you shooting us now?” With a little attitude the response was, “Do you have a problem with that?” “

Although it was an innovative idea at the time, Google Glass quickly became an interesting idea. It continued in some business applications, but was not yet ready for prime time. Facebook’s new Ray-Ban Stories glasses seem to have overcome Google’s earlier problems: the devices cost around a fifth of Google Glass and look like the Ray-Ban Tom Cruise made famous in the movies. Back then, in the elevator, we knew something atypical was brewing because of Google Glass’s geeky appearance. Cool Tom Cruise, however, is another matter.

Without a doubt, Ray-Ban’s Facebook technology is impressive: two 5-megapixel cameras, three microphones, four gigabytes of storage, and contained not in a bulky or Star Trek-like device, but in a simple pair of Ray- Ban indistinguishable. . Just tap on the swatches and the audio or video is captured. Adding a small LED on the Ray-Ban Stories frame is supposed to let people know they are registered. The product’s website reassuringly proclaims: “Designed for privacy, controlled by you”. The privacy issue, however, is not just about “you” as the photo taker, but also “them”, those who are photographed and recorded. That the secret capture is associated with Facebook, a company little known for its respect for privacy, is not reassuring.

The evolution of confidentiality

This is not the first time that the question of privacy and secret photography has arisen. This story illustrates the evolution of the interpretation of what constitutes privacy. At the end of the 19th century, George Eastman developed the consumer Kodak portable camera. This triggered howls of concern. Suddenly, everyone could have had the ability to capture someone else’s images and actions without the knowledge or permission of the other person.

No less a lawyer than Louis Brandeis, who would become one of the great justices of the Supreme Court, responded to the new Kodak with a law review article entitled The Right to Privacy. “Recent inventions and business methods draw attention to the next step that must be taken for the protection of the person and to guarantee the individual…. The article went on to warn that “many mechanical devices threaten to confirm the prediction that” what is whispered in the closet will be proclaimed from the top of houses. “

Brandeis’ analysis looks odd today, as smartphones generate over a billion photos per day. But replace its term “mechanical devices” with “digital devices” and “whisper in the closet” with the ability to photograph and record conversations in an elevator without permission and to store and manipulate that information and the result is a whole new world. courageous.

The digital enigma

Ray-Ban Stories illustrates the conundrum of the digital age: how the exponential growth in technological capabilities is stretching the linear thinking of humans and their institutions – a topic explored in a new book, The Exponential Age, by Azeem Azhar. Becoming a modern day Luddite is clearly not the solution. But neither turns around and takes into account the consequences of new developments. The stake is not the abrogation of the digital revolution, but the establishment of safeguards of general interest for its behavioral results.

The amazing technology of the new eyewear is a classic example of the way digital entrepreneurs think. The question “can we build it?” “Replaces the question” what are the consequences if we build it and how can they be mitigated? Facebook seems to have anticipated the need to address the issue of privacy as part of its product rollout, but the issues raised require more than public relations.

To Facebook’s credit, their Responsible Innovation Principles profess a commitment to “creating inclusive and privacy-focused products.” The principles, however, place this responsibility on the users. Principle 1 is “Never surprise people; While being “transparent about how our products work and the data they collect” is a laudable goal, that doesn’t prevent an unwanted surprise in the elevator. Principle 2 is “Provide controls that matter”, which “put people in charge of their experience”, which in this case appears to be the LED warning light. Principle 3 is “Consider everyone”, in particular, “we must also consider the people who do not use our products”. Principle 4 is “Put People First” and is defined as “the responsible stewards of people’s data”.

What exactly do the words in the last principle mean? “[W]e treat it [personal data] with the sensitivity it deserves …[and] take precautions with particularly personal data types ”is the explanation. But beyond noble words, what will be done with the data that can be secretly collected?

We have all experienced how Facebook and others have exploited the web to hijack our personal information – both virtual and physical – even when we are not using the product. Now comes the possibility of having roaming data feed information collectors in Facebook’s servers. To their credit, the company said it would not use the data created by the glasses for its more traditional aggregation and targeting activities. The digital images and sound captured by the glasses are stored on the device rather than automatically uploaded to Facebook. The bearer makes the decision to unload, but once taken, the data always ends up on the Facebook server when the user uploads it to an application linked to that user’s Facebook account.

“We take your privacy and security seriously,” the eyewear website promises. Well, at least they’re talking about it. But this is of course the same company that in 2014 promised regulators that it would run WhatsApp as a separate business, separating and protecting consumer data, and then, acting unilaterally in 2021, did exactly. opposite. It is a company whose business model is based on the use of personal information.

Beyond Brandeis

It does not mean some sort of heavy regulation; but it means more than allowing technologists to unilaterally set the rules.

In the 20th century, we moved beyond Brandeis’ fears about cameras. The 21st century, however, opens up a whole new set of issues around the use of personal data. Facebook specifies that glasses are the gateway to augmented reality, describing them as “first generation smart glasses”. We know what’s coming: augmented reality and virtual reality.

Rather than repeating what has been experienced with the web – the wake-up call after the horse leaves the stable – today we should be establishing policies for the use of data created by even newer technologies. It does not mean some sort of heavy regulation; but it means more than allowing technologists to unilaterally set the rules.

The internet’s ability to spy on users caught everyone off guard from its first iteration. Facebook’s Ray-Ban Stories glasses now offer the opportunity to address the issue of next-generation wearable technology. It’s commendable that companies like Facebook say they’ll be sensitive to personal privacy issues, but it’s not enough. We have seen how corporate “privacy policies” are less about protecting privacy and more about invading a user’s privacy.

Let’s take Facebook (and others) at its word about protecting individual privacy and developing federally enforced standards of behavior for the use of data created when we use these amazing new products.

Facebook and Google are general and unlimited donors to the Brookings Institution. The results, interpretations and conclusions published in this article are solely those of the author and are not influenced by any donation.