Servers usually accept data in a thousand ways in a thousand endpoints. Anyone who tries to prevent buffer overflow or slowloris attacks by limiting password length specifically is doing it wrong. An absurdly long password is surely one of the least likely places where a resource-use vulnerability would pop up since the data usually gets sent straight into a 20 year old hash implementation.
In case any programmers read this, the better procedure, if you want to use bcrypt, is to hash the password with something else first, like SHA512, then feed the output into bcrypt.
to slow down attackers who want to brute force your password hash. At least that was the idea. I guess it also includes the salt stuff built in so that it's harder for implementers to screw up.
Is a 9-order-of-magnitude slow down worth the trouble? I dunno. Maybe.
They won't be thrown out. You'll surely be able to buy these in the future just like you can buy cell phones and fire crackers. But you can't take cell phones and fire crackers anywhere you want. You may not drive a car wherever you want, you may not carry a visible firearm wherever you want, and you may not use a backscatter X-ray machine wherever you want.
Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"?
In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it?
If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?
And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant?
Because you haven't "caught" them?
Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device?
Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely?
What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?
I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses...
If I may suggest...
If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording...
If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?)
So, to recap, I don't understand.
You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses?
> In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording
You have them.
> then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?
No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device.
> Are we talking about legal accountability
Social and legal.
> What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?
The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go.
> argument.. would have to be applied universally
Yup.
> how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording
Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives.
> You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...?
Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't.
This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others.
> at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones
There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.
I concur that most people, myself included, would not wish for video cameras of any type, overt or covert, be brought in to locker rooms or any other place where there is an expectation of at least some form of privacy.
I am not sure however, that a global public ban on the use of smart glasses, whether enacted by one (or more) countr(y/ies) law and/or by social conscience (of which Meta's smart glasses are but one in a sea of many that are/will be produced by many manufacturers in many countries, present and future) is the right answer...
The argument you present is not persuasive.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that chainsaws (or any other inanimate tool, neither good, nor evil, merely neutral inanimate tools) are "bad" because occasionally they cut off limbs of people, both in cases of accident and by means of a few isolated cases of bad faith actors using them.
It happens from time to time, that's true...
But it's the exception, it's not the rule.
It's the same argument against self-driving cars...
Do they kill people?
Yes, from time to time they do!
But in such relatively low numbers (fractions of a fraction of a percent) relative to the amount of people using them...
It's the exception, it's not the rule.
The same argument could be applied to elevators...
Do they kill people from time to time?
Sure they do!
But again, it's the exception, it's not the rule.
Your argument is an exception, it's a corner-case, it is not the norm, and it is not how the majority of most lawful, responsible individuals in society act.
It is not how you would act, and it is not how I would act.
It is not how most responsible people would act.
In short, it is not persuasive.
Now, I don't mean to offend you in any way by saying that. Certainly you are free to attempt to persuade as many people as you wish of your viewpoint. You could seek political office and with enough political support, perhaps you could get your viewpoint enacted into Law.
And certainly I and millions of others would respect such Laws if you did get them enacted, even though I currently do not own a pair of smartglasses, produced by Meta or any other company, and I certainly would not take them into a Men's locker room with me if I did own a pair!
But you see, as far as your central argument goes, I can't (and it may be just me!) distinguish it from any other argument of the form
Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors Y (who are exceptions, corner-cases, outliers, not the norm of society) to engage in illegal/immoral/anti-social/unethical/unlawful action Z.
You see I've heard that same argument over and over and over again.
Your argument is an example, a specific case of that pattern.
And that pattern, because I have heard it over and over (and over!) again, is simply not persuasive.
This being said, you're entitled to your viewpoint, and you're entitled to seek any political or social action you feel may help that viewpoint!
I will not stand in your way!
But, at least at the present moment, I individually am not persuaded...
Airtaxis can't retrofit suburbs just like cars can't retrofit 1850s cities. Imagine a city built around airtaxis and delivery drones. I think it is doable which means that they'll do it.
Cities were originally built around walking. Later they expanded a little bit with horses. After that they were rebuilt for cars. They will be rebuilt again when transportation technology changes, at least for those that can afford it.
I agree. When I say I learned "the lesson", there are two possible takeaways a person can take. If you want to win, it really helps to play the game to win (i.e. use these strategies). If you want to focus on your own pride and making something delightful that makes the world better, you have to explicitly choose that, and reject the idea in your mind that you will be rewarded for it. You might be rewarded anyway, but you can't expect it else you will often end up disappointed when you compare yourself to others.
There are other weird things. If these become widespread, meta will know and be able to sell (or turn over to the government) a list of everyone you spend time talking to in public and private. Cell phone companies only have low-resolution location information. Meta will know that you talked to Sarah for 288 seconds before handing her an envelope before she went to an abortion clinic.
