Arguably that's a bit difference because to do that you have to explicitly do it (room setup) and you view the result (visual preview with semi-transparent triangles over your place). You can also read the ToS and I believe in some case specify if you allow the information to be sent back to the Meta. I'm not saying it's OK, only that it's explicit and it's part of the "normal" usage of the device.
- Posts
- 6
- Comments
- 686
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 6
- Comments
- 686
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Privacy @lemmy.world Dangerous Apps - How They Trade Your Data - (2026 ARTE 52min documentary)
Privacy @lemmy.world 39C3: Power Cycles - media.ccc.de
Selfhosted @lemmy.world Interoperability between self-hosted services
Selfhosted @lemmy.world Help request : Docker service (PeerTube) doesn't work on new server
Technology @lemmy.world Meta Quest 3/3s XR headsets finally rooted after 2 years
Privacy @lemmy.world SplinterCon Taipei Video Archive


A VR headset is basically a phone with lenses, so yes. That's why cardboard and free promotional gifts of lenses snapping on phones work.
My point though isn't about the technical abilities but rather about the social expectations. If you buy a device that does something intrusive but you know that in order to deliver the main value it will do that, it's OK. It's part of the social contract. If somehow though a device is intrusive but it's not expected, either because it was thought to be impossible to do or unrelated to it's original purpose or both, then it's a big problem, a breach of the social contract.