Jon Burmeister writes: What possibly could go wrong? "Oh! See that pretty girl! Who is she? Where does she live?" "Ow! That cop busted my head. Who is he? Where does he live?" Now I expect the first example to be shrugged off, but the second one will get the establishment's attention. Nick Thurn writes: Didn't Google try something like this about 15 years ago — Google Glass, I think — sunk without a trace [Editor's note: Google Glass was launched in 2013 and pulled from the market in 2015].
Users were christened "Glassholes". There's nothing special about this tech, especially when it can phone home via 5G — we're already wandering round uniquely identified and tracked by our smartphones — even with all data-gathering turned off and while running a VPN. I expect China, which is ramping up a pervasive "social credit" system, will equip their police with this type of tech at some point.
Frank Dee writes: Orwell's surveillance in 1984 looks old-fashioned. The authorities have us at their fingertips. No more revolutions, no more protests, no more activism.
We could all wear masks, but that in itself would cause suspicion. But there is one factor..
. The amount of information that Meta, Instagram, etc have on us is only as good as the amount of information that we give them. A choice is coming; do you want social media, or do you want privacy? Roberto writes: Can we please, please, please differentiate between the AIs? There is AI that does important, laborious work, like l.
