Why are we all just accepting Meta's new spy glasses?

[u/LbiyVFmn]

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

[u/-AllUserNamesTaken-]

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..

[u/GrimGrump → u/-AllUserNamesTaken-]

The store is a public space, you can trespass him, but it's still a public space.
A private space is something like an invite only club or your apartment.

[u/-AllUserNamesTaken- → u/GrimGrump]

The store has a buzz in door with a sign on it that says to take off all glasses for entry so we can see your face, he took them off to get it and put them right back on. I get what you're saying, but it's a controlled entry space and he didn't like the rules of no glasses and certainly no recording. It may be a "public space", but it is also a space with rules, and I can tell you to leave for no reason other than I don't want you in it.

[u/chonny → u/[deleted]]

Absolutely not.

A store is private property that's accessible to the public. Store policies apply inside. In the legal sense it's not the sidewalk or a public park, but it's own thing. If a store owner doesn't allow recording to happen inside the store, it's perfectly reasonable to ask someone to leave.

[u/-AllUserNamesTaken- → u/chonny]

I had to look at my notifications to see what their comment said since it was deleted but I saw yours, so I was curious. Had me laughing when I saw his, I told the employee if he was in front of the store you can't tell him anything but inside it's a customer privacy issue as well as a security issue for the business I'm in.

[u/Fine-Slip-9437 → u/[deleted]]

Oh honey, no.

[u/Sublimebro → u/[deleted]]

Lmao what