It sounds interesting, but the title and content of the linked page don’t explain how privacy is ensured, and the fact that it requires logging in with Google also leaves me puzzled. Can you explain?

If you’re interested in privacy and data sovereignty, you should know that on my Substack, “Own Your Data,” I provide weekly analysis of tech news, political moves, and corporate strategies through the lens of data sovereignty and privacy: https://ownyourdatamp.substack.com/

And I’m working on building Meishi, a privacy-first contacts app with E2EE, P2P, and open source: https://www.meishiapp.com/

My advice is: switch to Brave and de-Google your life.

If you're interested in privacy and data sovereignty: https://ownyourdatamp.substack.com/ + https://www.meishiapp.com/

When lawsuits result in settlements, it means only one thing: - The accused company knows that if the trial continues, it will pay much more in fines - The prosecution knows that if the trial continues, it will pay much more in legal fees - The settlement is reached because it is in both parties’ best interest

In any case, justice is not served this way; it is merely a financial agreement between disputing parties and does not resolve the structural problems that led to the lawsuit. The best solution—beyond fines—is to make significant changes to the design that caused such damage.

That sounds very interesting. How does it differ from other solutions like https://keet.io/?

The difference between a phone and smart glasses is that someone filming with a phone in their hand is actually more noticeable than someone walking around a venue wearing smart glasses, which look like regular glasses.

The point is that, if they wanted to, someone could enter a venue wearing a brooch, a pendant, or some other item attached to their body that records video. If the object – whatever it may be – is not easily identifiable as a video-recording device, then the privacy violation is real regardless of the device.

The problem is that here we’re focusing on the device’s form factor rather than its purpose. It’s a bit like criticizing knives because they can kill, even though they’re used for cooking. The problem isn’t banning filming; it’s that such acts must be punishable by law. Similarly, facial recognition should be prohibited not only when used with glasses but for any type of recording, because it violates everyone’s privacy to help catch a few criminals. It’s disproportionately unfair and undermines the freedom of all of us.

Interesting article. Here are my tips on this topic:

- Reduce the number of online accounts you have as much as possible - Avoid social media; if you really want to keep them, don’t post photos of your face as your profile picture or in your content – or, alternatively, make sure they’re visible only to your contacts - Consider purchasing clothing specifically designed to disrupt facial recognition and wear it during public appearances

Take back control of your data. My Substack, “Own Your Data,” covers exactly these topics – every week, I provide analysis of tech news, political moves, and corporate strategies through the lens of data sovereignty and privacy.

Ironic that you're espousing taking back one's own data but using Substack ...

Where's the irony? Unlike social media platforms, which can ban you and make you lose all your followers (it just happened to me on X), with Substack you can export your audience and continue elsewhere if you can, without losing a single contact.

It's still a closed garden not under your control.

That's partly true—if I leave, I lose the infrastructure for creating articles and sending newsletters, but I can take my contact list with me and use another service. It's like email. If I change my email address, I can export my contacts and use another service. A true closed ecosystem keeps everything—the infrastructure and your contacts—all in one place. Look at social media.

Hi ChillyCapy, I'm not a technical expert, so I can't evaluate your work, but since you're interested in privacy, I'd like to recommend my Substack, “Own Your Data,” where I publish analyses of tech news, political moves, and corporate strategies through the lens of data sovereignty and privacy. You'll find the link in my profile.

Point 3 is the most important, but the fact that it’s opt-out rather than opt-in is a trick that tech companies should stop using. There must be explicit consent, not the opposite.

The mass surveillance you don’t expect also involves trying to normalize privacy violations by shifting the Overton window.

Big Tech gets a twofold advantage from these smart glasses: - They know in real time what you’re seeing, doing, and where you are - They can see what other people are doing—even those who may not be on their platform

It’s an interesting tool, especially because it’s designed with privacy in mind. How does it recognize the type of purchase made? I imagine it’s based on the name of the company where you made the purchase, right? How accurate is this estimate? Can you change it if it’s wrong? Is there a smartphone app? I’d definitely find it more useful in my daily life than the web or desktop version.