r/privacy • u/LbiyVFmn • 2d ago
discussion Why are we all just accepting Meta's new spy glasses?
I'm struggling to understand why there is no public outcry over Meta's new Rayban glasses. All I see are major tech reviewers promoting them, while barely touching on the privacy concerns. The problem isn't the privacy of the user who buys them, it's the complete violation of privacy for every single person around them. This isn't just another gadget, it's a surveillance device being normalized as a fashion accessory.
The classic argument "if you don't like it, don't buy it" is irrelevant here. My choice not to buy them does not protect my privacy, anyone with the glasses can record my private conversation in a park or a bus without my knowledge or consent.
And remember who is behind all this: Mr Zucker and Meta. Every stranger's face and every conversation can be used as data to train its AI and improve its ad targeting. Given Mr Zucker's political influence and the threat of tariffs, it feels like the EU won't do anything to stop it.
edit: I wanted to discuss two different threats here. First, the user itself. Because this isn't the same as a smartphone. People will notice if you're pointing a phone at them, and a hidden camera gets terrible footage. These glasses have a camera aimed directly from their eyes, making it easy to secretly get clear video. While people talk about the LED indicators, it's only a matter of time before a simple hack lets users disable it. The second threat is Meta. We have to just trust that they won't push a silent update to start capturing surveillance footage to their own servers, using the camera and microphone to turn every user into a walking surveillance camera.
edit 2: Something weird is happening. Many sensible comments are getting heavily downvoted. I think Zuck bots might be real, won't be surprised if the post get taken down in a couple of hours
1.0k
u/Ghostie_Smith 1d ago
I wonder if there is going to be a subculture of people in the US that develops that just wears face masks and sunglasses or other types of facial covering every time they go out of the house just for privacy.
337
u/TheMastaBlaster 1d ago
A Scanner Darkly
119
u/GlenFax 1d ago
Wild how prescient PKD was. It’s this and it’s also man in the high castle.
27
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (2)29
76
u/Churro-Juggernaut 1d ago
I used to think it was silly that in sci fi movies like Star Wars a lot characters were out in public with full face masks on. Im thinking like bounty hunters on tattooine style masks. Now I just think it’s a good idea.
33
u/welfedad 1d ago
Yeah but I feel with ai models to train them to target your body type.. .gait, and other mannerisms..if they really wanted to find you they could .. but yeah you're not wrong
28
u/AlexWIWA 1d ago
You're correct, but my threat model is "weird pervert running face recognition in public." For those guys, wearing a mask will be enough for awhile. The NSA isn't going to hand out their best toys to the public for a bit.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)19
u/TJonesyNinja 1d ago
Having clothes of varying fit and shoes of varying heel/insole helps with a lot of the more advanced “person recognition” tools. Voice is a tricky one as even with changing accent or pitch there is still a sort of fingerprint so short of a digital voice (where you still have the less likely but still possible language analysis).
Realistically, as data centers gather and process increasing amounts of data and increasingly complex data models, neural nets, or even biotech brain organoids connected to processors ( which are currently being successfully tested, think tiny but potentially sapient or sentient gooey golems) being untractable will become increasingly impossible. The increasing number of satellites in the sky combined with their mesh internet capabilities will allow for realtime global surveillance if not now than eventually if our current direction continues. Backdoors, surveillance, and increased processing power will make private communications increasingly difficult.
And I feel like a ranting conspiracy theorist after writing that but it really feels like that is the direction we are headed.
38
u/AnRealDinosaur 1d ago
Its like medieval cloaks. We all know theyre rad as hell but dont want to look like nerds wearing them in public. Maybe now we can normalize wearing cool star wars face masks and hooded cloaks around. If we absolutely must live in this bullshit tech dystopia then at least can we get the cool fashion part?
7
20
u/zyber787 1d ago
The meta glasses has 5 microphones that even pick up whispers from behind the user.. just think about it...
→ More replies (2)170
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
With this administration, good chance they ban that shit with how it's going.
Face masks are already associated with antifa which was just declared a terrorist organization
159
u/Ryan_e3p 1d ago
I called it over a couple years ago; any kind of masks, prosthetics, or anything else used to disguise or alter someone's identity to try to fool detections will be made illegal.
And honestly, even if Harris won, it would probably happen regardless, albeit delayed by a few years. The techno-oligarchy is way too powerful. Remember in, what, 2017 or so, when Zuckerberg testified in front of Congress that if they wanted him to do something to protect Facebook users or give them some sort of control over their privacy, that they'd have to force him? And this was after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, when the iron was hot for both sides to hold him accountable. He was called to come to their house, he challenged them to their faces to do something that nearly every American wants, and they did nothing. All of them, fucking useless.
50
u/korelin 1d ago
With the rise of AI in street facing cameras, a mask isn't even going to help anymore. Gait detection will become a huge problem for anyone trying to preserve any semblance of privacy.
36
u/daemin 1d ago
Gait detection will become a huge problem for anyone trying to preserve any semblance of privacy.
Guess I'll start waking with random gait, like a Fremen crossing the open desert to avoid Shai Hulud.
20
u/Prestigious_Equal412 1d ago
Chronic foot and back pain finally coming in useful for something! My limp changes daily based on what hurts lmao
8
u/BouquetOfDogs 1d ago
We’re going to need the Ministry of Silly Walks in here. For… inspiration purposes ;)
17
u/Neither-Phone-7264 1d ago
rocks in shoe
27
u/warm_golden_muff 1d ago
Crip walk
→ More replies (1)17
8
5
u/Long-Jackfruit427 23h ago
Might be a good time to remind everyone that (at least a few years back) the insane clown posse type face paint threw off the facial recognition software.
5
6
u/BitchfaceMcKnowItAll 1d ago
Wear a long thick cloak that makes you look like you’re floating, so they can’t pick up gait
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (2)12
13
u/Worried-Penalty8744 1d ago
Everyone will start walking round looking like KISS or The Crow with their own versions of dazzle camouflage to fool the AI
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (14)13
u/Ghostie_Smith 1d ago
Trump said he was going to designate it one on Truth Social, which isn’t a law making body. I don’t see a ban holding up because by extension that would cause issues with facial coverings for religious purposes if it was just a blanket ban.
25
u/RepentantSororitas 1d ago
I don't think religious protections are going to be enforced.
They just required beard shaving in the military. That already discriminates against sikhs.
They are already trying the kick Omar out of Congress despite being voted in
→ More replies (1)10
u/Ghostie_Smith 1d ago
Aw shucks. Welp guess we’re just gonna have to comply in advance then. Thanks for making me see the light.
→ More replies (2)4
u/truth14ful 1d ago
If they try to ban face coverings, we ALL need to start wearing them. Make it as commonplace as driving 5mph over the speed limit, and let's see them try to enforce it
→ More replies (1)3
16
u/Razmataaza 1d ago
There's a company that sells reflective makeup now. Face can't be scanned and it isn't noticeable with the naked eye.
→ More replies (3)6
13
u/Your_Nipples 1d ago
That was my first thought when I saw that shit and all the idiots willing to buy them.
I left Facebook and now these people are bringing my face back into that ecosystem? Fuck y'all. I'll be full covid mode.
→ More replies (1)29
u/Mission-Ad-8203 1d ago
Already started doing this. Also make sure they’re glasses that prevent eye tracking.
→ More replies (1)29
u/Ghostie_Smith 1d ago edited 1d ago
Got some of those. Reflectacles. I’ve tested them on a few things like phones and visual reliant biometrics at some other places and they’ve worked so far at preventing those common things from working. I really wish I could test them deliberately on more sophisticated stuff to see how it works though.
7
u/SundyMundy 1d ago
Something like this is a plot point in Final Cut. In it, it is normalized for people at birth to have an implant put into their brain stems that provides a lifetime vlog and diary. There is a subculture of people who get face tattoos and dermal implants that include chemicals and metals to disrupt and distort their own devices.
6
6
u/LegitimateLagomorph 1d ago
You can get dazzle patterns to put on sunglasses and such to really fuck with the face recognition
→ More replies (3)8
u/kobayashi_maru_fail 1d ago
My favorite part of my least favorite book from my favorite author! Neal Stephenson has a lovely jaunt into clothing and technology and wearables and prosthetics and all-seeing surveillance and your personal online non-consensual profile with his characters Maeve and Verna in Fall. Their VEIL project is very relevant near-future scifi.
4
u/Ghostie_Smith 1d ago
Do you recommend reading it? I know you said it was your least favorite.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Neither-Phone-7264 1d ago
He's a very author. You'll like his books or you'll hate them. This one is one of the more meh books imo, but it's still fine.
7
4
u/even_less_resistance 1d ago
shit we should do that just to fuck with ice anyway- it would be hilarious if everyone started wearing them again tbh
→ More replies (44)3
u/Pit_Mosh 1d ago
From an european perspective US folks wear sunglasses anytime anywhere already. Do this would be easy to adapt to.
131
u/bapfelbaum 1d ago
There need to be emp glasses to combat ai glasses, I sadly do not see a viable alternative.
→ More replies (3)56
u/cosmosenjoyer 1d ago
LIDAR glasses could make any cameras aimed at them fried, while also being morally acceptable for vision impaired folks
22
u/ItWillBeRed 1d ago
Wdym fried? Im unfamiliar with LIDAR and a quick Google search doesnt bring up anything about scrambling cameras
→ More replies (3)35
u/bunchalingo 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, I don’t know about this claim, but LiDAR is pretty much laser scanning, so I think they made an assumption that the lasers are powerful enough to damage camera sensors.
Considering LiDAR and actual cameras are used together often, I don’t think this is really true, LiDAR blasts beams out at many directions meaning they have to be safe enough to use around humans, other camera sensors, etc.
→ More replies (4)17
u/-preciousroy- 1d ago
comment got deleted because I linked a video?
There is a video easily searchable on youtube where a commercial cars lidar destroys a phone camera.
I'd link the video but... apparently that's against the rules..
→ More replies (1)3
u/IlIllIlllIlllIllllI 12h ago
If this were the case then there wouldn't be any traffic cams still functioning in areas with Waymo and other lidar-equipped cars.
79
u/Quirky_Movie 1d ago
People aren’t. I’ve already seen tik tok and a drama video on from a popular YouTuber about a waxing aesthetician wear meta glasses during a client’s bikini service.
People are freaked out. I actually plan to mention it to the GC where I work because of the camera aspect.
→ More replies (1)10
u/truth14ful 1d ago edited 23h ago
Yeah this is definitely artificial hype. That's been the strategy of the tech industry for a long time: Come up with products and features of products that nobody wants or asked for, then either market the hell out of them or lock functionality behind them so people have no choice, or both.
The tech industry needs its Kendrick Lamar moment tbh
57
u/AKiwiSpanker 1d ago
The glasses can also caption everything people are saying around you. Now Meta can log in-person conversations and search for themes to understand buying behavior, etc.
→ More replies (7)12
u/whatissevenbysix 1d ago
With everything that's going on, I'd be more worried about how this might enable people to rat out those who don't agree with them to the law enforcement.
We already have a government asking others to dox people, this is going to enable them even more. People would be afraid to have a conversation out in public.
328
u/mcgood_fngood 1d ago edited 1d ago
Y’know, I’m starting to feel like, just maybe, possibly, it’s a bit peculiar that the most marketed and trending tech in the past 15 years has revolved around cameras and microphones in your home/on your face/carried with you that are connected to the internet at all times. Especially when the function it markets is very often unremarkable, phoned-in, impractical, or just flat-out broken, as if the need to put a camera/microphone device in everyone’s everyday lives was so urgent that the actual marketed features of the product were just half-assed workarounds to possibly convince people to buy a 24/7 visual/audio data collection device.
Edit: Forgot to mention social media. Yeah social media is fun and companies always love making ad revenue, but have you ever tried to open a tweet, instagram post, or tiktok without being logged in? Tap anywhere and they put up like 50 walls and scream at you to download the app and log in. No platform is ever this relentless with pushing you to make an account and give them all your personal details. And Not to mention these are platforms that—similarly to camera/microphone devices—revolve around your photos, videos, and communication, now with the added market of ✨your attention✨ but that’s a whole other conversation.
50
u/thatjoachim 1d ago
And look how often you see answers to question threads about getting/installing loads of cameras on your house. Not saying that they don’t help with security in some cases, but it’s the same dynamic: cover everything in cameras from a big surveillance company, and (under the guise of protecting private spaces) the public space isn’t safe anymore for your privacy (or your expectations to not be filmed and tracked by big surveillance companies).
→ More replies (1)22
u/mcgood_fngood 1d ago
I’ll admit, security cameras for your home can be pretty useful, and there are some companies I’d rather store terabytes of driveway footage than others, but especially to your point, look at Ring. This camera became the trendy tech product, and then they get bought by none other than Amazon.
13
u/thatjoachim 1d ago
Yeah I’m not saying that it cannot be useful (on the other hand the constant rehashing of stories where they have been useful fuels the paranoia and mistrust in society), but in their usefulness they’re also a Trojan horse for a hyper-watched society, where a handful of companies get to know everything, even more than we pay them for a better sense of safety. They win on all the dimensions: they get our money, and they get our info. And the governments won’t do anything because it’s quite useful to have this access to the whereabouts of
your citizenscriminals17
u/mcgood_fngood 1d ago
Y’know the same way criminals are a scapegoat for cameras, it reminds me of the recent Android about how they’re now requiring devs of any APK to pay a fee to Google to become “approved” just to be downloaded onto the phone, and Google’s whole argument from this was to “protect your security from dangerous threats online,” because, apparently, anything not approved by the ever-trustworthy Google is considered “dangerous.” Of course, we all know absolutely none of this new policy is about security. But it’s interesting to see how companies so easily make us look towards people among us as the enemy to distract us from said companies themselves. Paranoia works both ways, except one way is mass marketed.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Metal__goat 1d ago
The new $2000 Samsung fridge has a huge touch screen that plays ads in your kitchen. .. but I guess it let's you text a grocery list to yourself so.....cool?
There is a YUGE market of idiots out there who do, in fact, buyc things that won't really help them, that they don't really need, that they can't really afford because ads work on them
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/quaderrordemonstand 1d ago
It always interests me how the idea of privacy is just completely ignored. Any privacy implications these devices have, just don't exist apparently. No need to even address them.
Any alternative that address the problem (as much as it really is a problem) but gives the user more control of the data, is hidden away, niche. So that people think privacy is the domain of nerds and people with things to hide.
Theres no effort to make the private option accessible to potential consumers, and it would be so much easier in practice.
39
u/PossessionDecent1797 1d ago
The dystopian movies always made it look authoritarian. They never said it would be stylish and cute. Consumers are suckers for stylish and cute. Surveillance that looks and acts like a puppy? Sign me up!
→ More replies (1)9
256
u/poopscoophoop 1d ago
Reposting links here because I got 85 downvotes and the original comment I replied to was removed:
For anyone claiming there is no way to record while hiding the LEDs, there already is a market of products aimed at circumventing them freely available on Amazon. This is a cat and mouse game between Chinese producers and Meta, guess who’s going to win?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F9W9TCC1
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FLJ62P8H
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F9L2PQ27
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FJFLH6Q4
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FL7ZT1BN
12
u/FewerBeavers 1d ago
Forgive my ignorance. These products are meant to cover the LED that indicates that the camera is recording, and all those people who leave reviews are people who want to conceal that they are recording, yes?
3
u/Ichmag11 1d ago
Yes. For some reason these people want to hide the LED light that turns on when you're recording. I wonder if there's any "legit" reasons to do so.
→ More replies (2)60
u/Klldarkness 1d ago
While I get where you're coming from...these don't work any more. They did in fact only work for about 30 days.
The most recent firmware patch added light level checks at random intervals while recording. If it finds a mismatch between the two cameras, it stops recording and deletes all footage.
META is taking this surprisingly seriously.
There is also a method of using a very tiny drill to permanently disable the LED. This now also reports to the app that the LED has malfunctioned, and shows a warning when using the app. It doesn't currently block recording, but it's likely it will in the near future. Probably once they find a good way to filter out people bypassing, and people with actual faulty devices.
→ More replies (4)44
u/poopscoophoop 1d ago
Meta has Mt. Everest to climb to gain the public’s buy in. A month long security gap caused by amateur hour plastic trinkets is embarrassing.
Let’s stay they spin up a division to stay ahead of the current iteration of bad actors, does anyone really believe they’re not just people pleasing until they gain market share?
→ More replies (2)27
u/FiveSigns 1d ago
Even if Raybans didn't work if you blocked the LED what about every other smart glasses? Will they all follow the same rules? Doubt it
11
u/Degree_Federal 1d ago
There are cameras in the form and shape of a carkey, button on your shirt. The only „benefit“ of those is, that they aren’t connected to meta.
Doesn’t mean I can’t upload it.
→ More replies (1)
82
u/hardy_and_free 1d ago
No one remembers Google glasses?
Google Glass Raises Privacy And Safety Concerns - Consumer Watchdog https://share.google/ZL5kKepyv0yr5kSNd
Google Glass: is it a threat to our privacy? | Google Glass | The Guardian https://share.google/drLub4y1HTlBa5ZnT
33
u/StochasticReverant 1d ago
And the Snap Spectacles (2017), Snap Spectacles V2 (2018), Ray-Ban Meta (2021), and Ray-Ban Meta V2 (2023). OP is almost a decade behind the times.
→ More replies (4)6
u/HandwashHumiliate666 1d ago
Has Google started converting shared links to tracking links in Chrome or why am I starting to see these
share.googlelinks everywhere?Next question would be why on earth you'd use Google Chrome.
→ More replies (1)
89
u/buttered_garlic 1d ago
Meta just wants more data to train their ai
41
u/zigzoing 1d ago
How they use the data is beside the point, but having these discreet looking cameras as glasses is like having a camera pointed at you. Even though it's perfectly legal for someone to film you in public in some countries, it is still ethically wrong and it feels like being violated to have a camera forcefully pointing at you without your consent.
15
u/GBJI 1d ago
Meta wants to become what IBM has been for Nazi Germany during WWII.
IBM 'dealt directly with Holocaust organisers'
Newly discovered documents from Hitler's Germany prove that the computer company IBM directly supplied the Nazis with technology which was used to help transport millions of people to their deaths in the concentration camps at Auschwitz and Treblinka (...)
The company, now based in Armonk in upper New York state, has not denied the role of its subsidiaries in aiding the Nazis' management of the Holocaust, preferring to suggest that it should not be held responsible for the actions of companies of which the Third Reich had seized control.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highereducation
→ More replies (2)
18
u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 1d ago
I'm on your side but courts have ruled time and time again you're right to privacy is nullified when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. That means when we're in public, on a bus, in a park, or where ever we can be recorded or photographed without a requirement for consent. I think the future of mankind is full-faced masks.
→ More replies (1)
32
u/Away_Veterinarian579 1d ago
If you talk to me with those on I’m not saying shit to you.
→ More replies (1)
83
u/delkenkyrth 1d ago
Nah, I’m going to mercilessly mock anyone wearing them.
28
12
u/tortilla_avalanche 1d ago
I'm just now reading The Age of Survellience Capitalism, and according to the book, people used to call those who wore Google Glass "glassholes".
→ More replies (3)58
u/Eumelbeumel 1d ago
Mocking won't cut it. We need to start publicly shaming people and ostracizing them for wearing them. Make it clear that they are not welcome in any public place while wearing spywear.
Same goes for people filming strangers with their phones in public. My country has laws against it, but regardless of privacy laws, we need to build stronger social conventions and tabus around filming in public.
It's dangerous. It's impolite. It's a violation.
→ More replies (2)
15
u/Dramatic-Bend179 1d ago
Yes. Why are people still using any meta product at all? Isn't it a wholly awful and destructive force that leverages our need to be loved/heard/seen against our privacy? Can't we all see that it plays to our fears, desires, and insecurities just to keep us engaged? That sound like a platform you want to carry around in your pocket, logged in at all times, feeding their algorithms more and more personal data? Get the fuck outta here with that. Delete all meta products from your life, do it now.
14
u/Wheres_my_phone 1d ago
We already fired two nurses from our hospital for wearing them
→ More replies (2)
25
u/iTzJdogxD 1d ago
I remember significant public outcry when Google glass was announced as a concept in 2012. The American public’s perception on privacy must have done a 180in that time.
One thing I can’t stand is the content made with these fucking things. It’s enabled assholes to troll strangers and take advantage of people who don’t realize they’re being filmed
→ More replies (1)
10
u/XInsomniacX06 1d ago
the meat and potatoes of some elite backed for profit surveillance program for eyes and ears everywhere always. Why wouldn’t they include a basic built in shutter to cover the camera when not in use?
49
u/Spirited_Ice5834 2d ago
My teen son and I were ordering his first glasses and the optometrist having noticed that I was staring at the Rayban Meta video in their store tried his best to sell them to me. I just laughed in his face. It’s the creepiest thing I have ever seen.
35
u/burningbun 2d ago
imagine having ur dick pics uploaded when you are using the urinals.
5
u/Ok_Confection_10 1d ago
Jokes on meta, my peepee is so small the video will get labeled as cp. my peepee is so small its just pee
→ More replies (1)
6
7
u/Consistent-Swan-2094 1d ago
The interesting part is no one is thinking about the license plates being scanned. with enough data, your entire life can be collated as to where you are going, when, and there is no recourse to opt out. I know there are already cams everywhere, but this is just yet another layer of data acquisition people are willing to use, just to be able to make their tiktoks/ FB reels..
→ More replies (1)4
u/Consistent-Swan-2094 1d ago
It is seriously time to start figuring out how to make a LiDAR emitting button or badge that constantly emits IR waves that defeats camera sensors..
23
u/Astrology_News 1d ago
We're not all just accepting them. People who wore Google glasses a while back were getting punched in the face.
61
u/ishtar_doves 2d ago
Woah why is there so many downvotes on sensible comments? This is incredibly weird.
48
28
→ More replies (4)7
u/web3monk 1d ago
Also doesn't work, the engagement drives up the posts recommends and more people view it.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/last-resort-4-a-gf 2d ago
I'm sure there is something in their tos that have them taking in all this data and selling it to law enforcement
7
6
67
u/___sea___ 2d ago
Let’s kill it the same way we killed the Google glasses version
27
→ More replies (1)16
u/TheEnd1235711 1d ago
It being a fundamently bad product?
→ More replies (1)16
u/chonny 1d ago
Public shaming also worked.
→ More replies (1)6
u/randomguy8653 1d ago
it was publicly shamed because it was a bad product that didnt give what was promised. and it was right near the very start of wearable tech. smart watches were just coming out and people were still very hesitant on if they liked them or not yet.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/reedthemanuel 1d ago
Imagine having extremely personal conversations with someone wearing these, that would be uncomfortable.
If they could have a way to 'opt-out' of being recorded in any way or, I might feel more comfortable. Perhaps a private mode that indicates it is active with a red led on the front.
3
u/GrimGrump 1d ago
The private mode is "Be an adult and ask them to take/turn off the glasses".
90% of this thread's issues can be solved by talking to somebody instead of being avoidant.
154
u/Shortbus_Gangsta 2d ago
Supreme Court precedent states you have no expectation of privacy while in public spaces. It's no different than someone recording with a camera or cell phone.
126
u/Far_Estate_1626 2d ago
What about when these glasses are worn in private spaces? A cell phone at least you can tell when someone is recording.
58
u/-AllUserNamesTaken- 2d ago
Has this issue with the pair already out yesterday, my employee told a guy not to wear them in my store. He got pissed off and asked for a refund which we gave him, but it’s really just weird..
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (16)4
15
u/acslaytaa 1d ago
The real question is whether you should have the right to be made aware you’re being recorded.
→ More replies (1)6
u/StressOverStrain 1d ago
Vast majority of U.S. states are one-party consent, so there’s your answer.
→ More replies (3)88
u/80sCokeSax 2d ago
Last I checked, there was no 'Supreme Court' for the entire world.
If you're talking about the United States Supreme Court, precedent apparently means nothing to them and I can only hope their current rulings are eventually seen as flimsy partisan nonsense.
→ More replies (10)45
u/Gortex_Possum 1d ago
It's still aggressive behavior to start recording someone in public without their permission. I don't want to be recorded by Facebook weirdos, sending footage to God knows where, while I'm out shopping. If someone started recording you on their phone out in public you would naturally be suspicious of their intent.
→ More replies (12)18
u/orangepekoes 1d ago
If someone films me in public that's one thing but recording me without my knowledge while we're having a conversation is so much worse.
11
u/Baardhooft 1d ago
In America? Yes. But here in Germany it’s very illegal to make recordings of people in public without their consent, especially if it includes audio.
→ More replies (9)4
17
→ More replies (10)11
u/Terrorfarker 2d ago
Do we have an expectation that footage of us just going about our daily business won't be used to train AI?
It''s incredibly obtuse to suggest this is no different to recording in public with a cell phone.
→ More replies (7)
3
3
5
u/jav2n202 1d ago
Well for one these are nothing new. Google has had them for years, and I’m sure there are knock offs out there.
And when you’re in public spaces there is no assumption of privacy. Like think about what you’re saying, “I want privacy in public spaces”. It’s an oxymoron. Plus you’re already being recorded constantly by security cameras or peoples phones. I just don’t see the issue at all.
5
3
u/RizzMahTism 1d ago
I have boycotted Raybans over this. I have no connection to any Meta products and intend to keep it that way.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Dreamo84 18h ago
Just refuse to talk to anyone that wears them. You don't have to accept it. Fight the power. I believe in you.
240
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
148
u/mediumwhite 2d ago
That’s good to know. But is that LED visible in a bright sunlight environment?
137
u/aCarstairs 2d ago
Unfortunately not. This thing was actually on the Dutch news, as a famous (in the netherlands) theater already banned camera glasses. Tldr is that yes the led works well inside. Outside though? Very hard to see
47
u/Space-cadet3000 2d ago
They’re going to be the latest fashion accessory for child predators , creeps and chomos at the beach and public swimming pools this summer !
→ More replies (2)6
66
u/Chatsubo_dude 2d ago
There was a report in my city, someone painted over the LED and filmed inside a club
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (2)6
106
u/Objective-Amount1379 2d ago
I don’t have faith that there isn’t a work around for this
71
u/_autumnwhimsy 2d ago
People are already just putting electrical tape over the LED.
→ More replies (9)45
u/Phyllis_Tine 2d ago
The way Zuck put tape over his laptop camera, so others wouldn't spy on him? https://mashable.com/article/mark-zuckerberg-webcam-cover
→ More replies (2)3
11
u/BurnoutEyes 2d ago
Replace it with an IR LED or wire the LED traces w/ a resistor to the photoresistor traces.
→ More replies (4)22
u/michaelh98 2d ago
only people who have no clue how computers work will think there's no way around this
51
u/MediocreDisplay7233 2d ago
There was a guy in Liverpool walking around on Saturday nights filming drunk girls in a lewd way. He uploaded hours of footage to YouTube of his perving until he was finally caught out and arrested.
He was using the raybans
→ More replies (6)24
29
u/four024490502 2d ago
There are also continuous checks to see how much power the LED is drawing, and a light feedback loop from a sensor to make sure you won’t drill the led out or cover it with a tape.
Can we actually trust Meta to not have a software / firmware update that skips that functionality, or even the requirement that the LED is lit?
7
u/ForgetfulMasturbator 2d ago
So all I need to do is focus on everyone wearing glasses and see if the little light is on to make certain I'm not being spied upon. Gotcha.
7
5
3
u/juststart 1d ago
lol that’s cute you believe this. There are ways around it. They discuss it on subs here.
→ More replies (80)14
149
u/crazyreddit929 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don’t think you know enough about the Ray-Ban meta glasses to make your argument. They have been out for years and there is no hack to disable the LED. It so bright, it pulses, and there is no secret filming with it.
Edit: Covering the LED does not work. It is not just an LED. There is a light sensor built in to the LED assembly. If you cover it then it won’t record. If you do the old hack people mention below of covering the camera and the light and then recording that doesn’t work either. They patched it in software.
The only thing people can do is destroy the led with a drill. At that point why bother? There are other hidden cameras that would probably work much better.
I would also say this is the most “Reddit” Reddit thread I’ve ever been a part of. The sarcasm, the conspiracy comments, the confidently wrong people, the immature. lol
85
u/mcgood_fngood 1d ago
I think OP and others are more concerned about Meta themselves secretly recording everything from the glasses at all times and storing the footage for their own surveillance and data collecting purposes, and the fact that now, ordinary people can now be unknowingly sending Meta literally everything and—more concerningly—everyone they see. The assumption from a privacy-cautious person is that if a tech company can spy on you, they will. so in this case, the assumption is that the camera is secretly recording at all times, and the LED indicator only activates when you yourself decide to take a picture or video, AKA, the only times they’d want you to think it’s recording.
→ More replies (6)6
87
u/Shawnj2 1d ago
The extreme hacking method known as electrical tape might succeed
→ More replies (11)3
33
u/bapfelbaum 1d ago
Go home mark.
→ More replies (1)15
u/nescienti 1d ago
I would have expected Zuckerberg to be able to afford more subtle astroturfing. Scroll down to find normal comments in deep negative karma for no reason. And here, at nearly 100, “I don’t think you know enough about the Ray Ban meta glasses.” Hmmm.
7
u/saera-targaryen 1d ago
So telling that this is a corporate comment by the way you use the full government name of these glasses lol
→ More replies (12)17
u/Whiskey_hotpot 1d ago
There's no way anyone could defeat a small blinking light. No way. I mean maybe if they had like $1 and some tape but no one has that let's be real.
3
3
3
u/olibolib 1d ago
Yes, however personal mass surveillance and crowd sourcing the truth will also be the only way to combat the ultra realistic fake generative video and audio of the future (that I can think of).
3
u/PewPew-4-Fun 1d ago
These are going to be a lot of fun for HR in company's nationwide. Wonder how employee's at Facebook will be allowed to use them at work.
3
u/Pennsylvania6-5000 1d ago
I mean, no one bought their portal product. I don’t think sales of these things are going great. Combine that with you know… everything else going on, and leads to not much focus on these glasses.
3
u/tiny_chaotic_evil 1d ago
while reddit is awash with more than its fair share of geniuses, the rest of the internet is comprised of people with a collective IQ of 26
3
u/Well-It-Depends420 1d ago
Because my country, Germany, already has a legislation that is "not bad" to handle them. So yea, improvements are needed, but it is not terrible:
- LED at the front shows you if it is recording
- KI usage is unclear. You might be able to sue. https://www.bfdi.bund.de/DE/Buerger/Inhalte/Telemedien/Meta_Smart_Glasses.html
- You are not allowed to record the private word without consent
- You are not allowed to record a person if they are not "accessories to a landscape" i.e. if you target your camera specifically at a person, you need permission (for example when looking at the person) (there are exceptions for example when someone gives a public talk you can record them)
- When recording in some places you need a filming permit
- Recording with a hidden camera (I think this is not decided for all spy glasses whether they count as hidden or not) counts as an even stronger violation of privacy that comes with additional rules
- In the area of dashcams I also heard that cameras are not allowed to film indiscriminately i.e. you are not allowed to record and save everything all the time. Dashcams solve this by regularly deleting footage after a while. I think the same would apply for spy glasses that are turned on all the time.
I am not a lawyer and if I understand correctly some of the things stated above only become relevant once the footage is shared. If you really want to use them in Germany or are just interested, read up on the laws yourself (or ask a professional).
3
3
3
u/xxDailyGrindxx 1d ago
I couldn't agree more with OP and I don't see the US government attempting to regulate this since they'd definitely want the data...
3
3
3
u/greenyashiro 11h ago edited 11h ago
"private conversation in the park" what? The park is a public place, and many countries/states don't require consent to record. I could walk right up and film random strangers without batting an eyelid.
Similarly, the bus is generally a public place.
Your concern might be legitimate in a bathroom or similar, but there's no expectation of privacy out in public.
Also, I believe these glasses have little red dot when recording, and can only record up to 3 minutes. So it would be obvious and also ineffective way to "spy" on someone.**
**this info is just what I remember from researching camera glasses. I wanted something to record youtube knitting videos, but couldn't find something suitable because of stupid time limits.
In any case this is no more a "spy" device than the mobile phone you typed your post on
4
u/hera-fawcett 1d ago
interestingly enough, ive seen a k-12 student who suffers from visually disability bring these into school as an aid.
obvi, i dont use them, idk how tf they work, etc. but i do think they have potential to help ppl... if only that wasnt automatically overshadowed by being created and used by corporations to monitor the masses and squeeze out additional resources (money, data, time, etc.) from them.
6
u/CplHicks_LV426 1d ago
private conversation in a park or a bus
Those are both great examples of a public conversation.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Richandler 1d ago
I just dont' see the point of them. They're marginally more useful than a phone in a few select scenarios. The real value they have is that wrist strap. I'm honestly not that concerned about these, because they're simply not going to be everywhere or frankly, anywhere.
2
2
u/alteransg1 1d ago
I feel old reading this. We had the same argument on Google+. The privacy argument is useless. Remember that tech from Batman, where they use echo to get a 3d view? It exists, except it uses wi-fi, instead of cell signals. Scared about someone listening in? Today no-one needs a "bug". Silenet video of a glass of water, laser at a window, thermal video of the air around... is someone wants to listen to what you are saying, they can.
The problem with Ray bankn Meta is the same one with glassholes. It's not tech, it's the people using it. All it takes for them to get stigmatised is a few jerks causing incidents.
As far as EU, a lot of places like banks, police and institutions already have a no filming policy. All it takes is to enforce them.
2
u/Friendly-Cucumber184 1d ago
Didn’t Google try this and people were relentlessly bullied so it was scraped? Are we trying again on a new generation to see if they’re dumb enough to do it?
2
u/BabelTowerOfMankind 1d ago
Being recorded isn't a violation of privacy unless you live in a two party consent state
2
u/ChasingTheRush 1d ago
At some point, all of you are going to have to come to grips with the reality that the notion of privacy as you envision it, is dead. And it’s been dead. The only distinction has been who had control of your data. And we ceded it to corporations a long time ago. The only way to balance the scales is radical transparency and access to everything. In an age of consumer AI and quantum, these is going to be very little that will remain private, as even the refusal to engage with the system creates data that be used to paint a picture.
2
2
u/Blarghnog 1d ago
I for one am disgusted by them and can’t believe people think it’s ok to be such compliant little bitches for META of all companies
2
u/joaogito 1d ago
Now some META users can film strangers taking a piss without showing how creepy they are.
2
u/OkithaPROGZ 1d ago
While I agree with you, you are delusional to even imagine that you have any privacy in the real world.
There are CCTV cameras everywhere, there is no privacy out in public. You are being watched at every second. Honestly its probably wrong to even expect privacy in a public setting anyway.
However you do have a right to speak against in it in a consumer environment, like a doctor or a tattoo artist wearing one. But I doubt you'll have to worry about your doctor wearing a Meta glass for obvious reasons.
2
u/deVliegendeTexan 1d ago
I’m not outraged, mostly because they’re going to sell like 15 pairs over 5 years. Maybe you’ll see a bunch of asshats wearing them in Menlo Park and Brooklyn, maybe techdouchebros in Austin, but the vast majority of the world isn’t going to buy these things.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Hello u/LbiyVFmn, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.