ReluctantMuskrat

That’s crazy! I had no idea they were charging that much now. Thanks for sharing!

It only solves it if you can install it on those routers. Can you??

I got the same error but hit reload and then it loaded fine.

Legally they can’t unless we grant them permission, and we shouldn’t. Everyone should be offended if they even ask.

I’m not sure it’s fear of lawsuits. We don’t sue cell carriers for not monitoring text messages, and even if we did Snapchat’s pockets are deep.

Snapchat isn’t afraid of being sued… they’re selling your data and may also assist the government identify “Anti-fa” agents.

So we should grant permission to our cell carrier to listen in on our calls and read our text messages too without warrant? Of course they’ll sell your data too.

Don’t give up your freedom and your constitutional right to privacy.

Except Snapchat doesn’t have to surveil its customers and we really don’t want it to.

Does Apple surveil iMessages? Does your cell carrier need to monitor your text messages? Does it listen to your calls to see if you make terroristic threats?

Some bad things might be prevented if we “listened in” to all communications and then triggered a police response when something alarming was said. But doing so is ripe for abuse by those in power as well and that’s why warrants are required before surveillance and the invasion of your privacy is allowed. No warrant was necessary here because Snapchat makes you accept the surveillance under its terms of use, which all apps and cell carriers could technically do. And your Amazon Alexas. We don’t want that. Without privacy you don’t have freedom.

Yep… couldn’t agree more. I has its uses but too many people are using it and disconnecting their brain. Going to meetings where people have used it to determine requirements, do analysis or even transform data and then don’t even review the results themselves before presenting and asking us to review them is rage-inducing. “What do you mean it has problems? Where? What’s wrong??” And there’s like 5 things I’ve spotted in 2 minutes and it’s clear they’ve not even reviewed it themselves.

This guy and his long-ass, poorly formatted AI-generated “documentation” no one asked for and then after numerous errors are pointed out… “Will you review the rest?” The audacity!! 😄

Additionally, is the other parenthetical information materially correct? If not, which points [1 thru to 7] are wrong?

This is one of the problems with relying on AI… it can produce an overwhelming amount of content with errors and inaccuracies throughout. If you don’t review and know the content yourself, you won’t know what it got wrong.

It’s genuinely rude to lazily use AI to produce such a large babble of details and then ask someone else to review it for errors when you haven’t reviewed it yourself. I know you didn’t mean it that way but that’s nonetheless the result. People are going to read your comment and be misled about this project all because they assume AI is accurate and you didn’t review its results.

Edit: Sheesh… I hadn’t even got to your shitty comments that followed. You use AI to make a low effort but highly verbose post and then get mad that the repo author won’t review it in detail for you when you can’t be arsed with reading the docs yourself.

As I said I’m not arguing for Meta’s glasses. They’re ripe for abuse and I have no doubt there are people who would use them in inappropriate ways and in non-public places where a person otherwise expects some privacy.

While there are valid reasons for recording things both in public and private, without a doubt the ability to secretly record video will be abused.

A person being able to record what they see and hear is different than a robot that records everything. I strongly disapprove of flock and online ID verification. Those aren’t related to a person being able to make a personal record.

38 states believe if you’re a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to protect yourself.

But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won’t suggest there aren’t reasons that some states are like that but I’m sure glad I didn’t live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.

Most states it’s legal to record audio without consent if you’re a party to the conversation, and it’s legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.

For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I’d not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I’d have likely not beat the charges. So yeah… I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.

They’d be helpful when interacting with police. Heck, I could see them being useful when interacting with anyone in a hostile situation. What people will say when they don’t think they’re being recorded and what they will say when they know they are can be vastly different, and the people that will speak and act differently are the very ones you want to record. I’ve had occasions in the past where these would have been very useful, though it turned out recorded audio was sufficent.

Unfortunately the tech is ripe for abuse and I understand the mistrust they cause. Too many crappy people, and too many crappy tech companies that will abuse the video themselves even if the person wearing them only used them with good intentions.