617
Women in Brussels 'filmed without their knowledge' by men wearing Meta smart glasses
(www.brusselstimes.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
617 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
85804 readers
2940 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.
Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.
They're not worse, but having yet another thing invading our privacy in public IS worse. No sense in giving up even more ground.
Stop and think about what you just said for a second. Privacy…..in public. You have no privacy in public, those are opposites.
There's degrees of privacy. People don't deserve to be recorded 24/7 just because they happen to be outside.
You might skip any trips to urban UK.
US cities are doing it too, but I just avoid urban areas as much as possible regardless.
They don’t “deserve” to, but it is not illegal if they are. If you’re in a public space you shouldn’t expect privacy…..because you’re in a public place. That’s pretty obvious.
Something being legal doesn't make it morally correct and the rest of us should oppose this shit in every way we can, not simply expect it.
Oppose what, that you can be filmed or photographed without explicit consent when you’re in public?
So if I go to the Eiffel Tower, I have to go and ask the hundreds of other people there if they consent to me taking their photo simply because they’re in my photo? Or if I see a criminal breaking into a house, I have to ask them if I can take their photo/video if I want to report them and hand over my photos/video to the police?
creeps.
the same creeps who can't understand what the problem is. creeps filming women and girls without permission or consent.
creeps like you apparently.
I understand the “problem”, but I understand that if you’re out in public you’re giving up some privacy. This isn’t a hard concept to understand. It’s literally in the name - public. Public is the opposite of private.
Laws exist around where you can and can’t film, and on the streets you can film. What you do with the footage also has laws around it, but a creep walking around taking photos of fully clothed women in public so he can jerk off to it isn’t breaking any laws.
they're already modifying them to record without indicator.
https://leafandcore.com/2025/10/25/meta-glasses-creep-mod-gaining-attention/
BY THE THOUSANDS https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/06/07/2215203/black-market-tinkerers-on-facebook-marketplace-offer-to-hide-recording-lights-on-meta-smartglasses
What does that have to do with what I said?
A creep using them to record in a bathroom would be illegal, light bypassed or not.
I’m not sure if you’ve realised, but creeps have been finding ways to film women and girls illegally for as long as there have been ways to film women and girls. That doesn’t make everyone taking photos and videos in public a creep like you pretend it does.
if you don't understand the enormous implications on what that link means it's a lost discussion mate.
creeps have always been creeps. why give them a better tool with higher resolution and plausible deniability?
god it's like talking to a child
Plausible deniability? How?
MOTHERFUCKER DO I HAVE TO SPELL OUT THE FUCKING HYPERLINK?
what do you need it written out in crayon?
https://leafandcore.com/2025/10/25/meta-glasses-creep-mod-gaining-attention/
READ THE FUCKING LINK I POSTED TWO REPLIES BACK.
Snapping a photo or video of your family or a landmark for your personal memories that happens to have some other people in the background is a hell of a lot different than sending a constant stream of everyone you're looking at along with location data to Facebook, Google, the government, and whoever the fuck else. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. And yes if you're going to be uploading someones image online I do think you should have their permission.
That’s not what is being discussed though (streaming video to fb/google/government/etc).
That’s where it would start crossing the line into surveillance, which has strict laws around it.
You think Facebook smart glasses aren't sending the video anywhere? Their entire business model is harvesting data on people.
You think they are? How?
The same way smartphones do, either streaming it or by uploading to whatever cloud "backup" they're connected to. Again, I should not have to explain this to you.
They’re factually not though. If you’ve somehow caught them doing it, transferring gigs and gigs and gigs of data per hour, provide the evidence please. These claims of yours are simple to prove if true.
They factually are. Stop fucking lying. https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/1384089832459749/
That’s if you choose to live stream. You spoke like it was doing it all the time.
Unless these companies are offering some means for the rest of us to restrict smart glass wearers from filming whenever the fuck they want the only sane option is to treat them as if they are doing it all the time.
There are no means for the rest of us to restric smartphone owners from filming whenever they want, are there? Should all people carrying a phone be treated as if they’re doing it all the time too?
Look, at the end of the day if you’re in public you can’t control other people being able to see you or take photos/videos of you. There are already laws around filing in private areas of public places, so nothing really needs to change.
No there aren't and I consider that to be a big problem. As I said before I don't think you should be allowed to put other people's images online without their consent. That said I can see when someone has a smartphone out and pointed at my face so I can tell them to stop filming me or move out of the frame. I cannot tell whether a pair of smart glasses are filming or not or even if they are smart glasses which makes them a bigger privacy issue.
Perhaps your future camera could automatically fog any individual that you haven't received prior consent from.
And yes, I realise this idea has a number of technological requirements that may not exist yet, or cannot reliably exist ever, and requires the trusting of some authority in a world where noone of that esteem seem to be able to exist.
Found the creep.
For simply stating the obvious?
In most of the world the law is pretty straight forward here - no expectation of privacy in public. Knowing this isn’t “creepy”. Not knowing this is hilarious.
Difference being: we're kind of powerless against government surveillance high up on a fence, but we can sanction the class traitor glassholes with an accidental elbow to the glasses and a clumsy step on them.
Seems like you’re giving a pass to government and corpos, while assaulting fellow citizens.
I intend on getting whatever glasses eventually come out with an AR layer involved, camera or not. Doesn’t mean I’ll be constantly recording. In fact I’d likely almost never record anything.
And apparently that means I deserve an elbow to the face.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, I am not giving a pass to government and corpos. But people recording others in public are henchmen of the very same fascist governments and yes, you deserve an elbow to the face if you record ANYONE (in more detail than within a large group of pedestrians) in public EVER without their explicit consent. Because you are - at least in civilized countries - violating privacy laws with the expectation that no one will sue you for it.
You’ve already stated that simply wearing them is assaultable. You have no way of knowing I’m recording, so you’ve just made the assumption that I am.
You’ll find that in almost every civilised country recording in public is 100% allowed. It’s what you do with the footage that has restrictions and laws around it.
Privacy in public is not a thing. They’re literally antonyms.
is being done != is being allowed. don't film people without explicit consent, or you deserve whatever happens to you as a consequence.
Sorry but the law is the law, and in public places you can and will be filmed and they don’t need your explicit consent. Which countries do you think it is illegal to film people in public places without explicit consent?
If you don’t like it, don’t go out in public. Also don’t pretend like anyone here is going to do anything to anyone wearing them lol. Everyone is a hero behind their keyboard. There would be no consequences.
For AR you need to be recording. If you are recording, it is being sent to Facebook servers. You accepted Facebook's terms and conditions, not me.
If you don't want to be punched, you should advocate for laws that make the glasshole glasses ugly through non-avoidable methods of detecting if the glasses are recording.
For example by requiring every glass hole glass to have a physical cover that physically covers the view of the camera, and it should be a bright color to easily see if it is covering the camera or not. The contour of the camera should be painted with an equally bright color, contrasting highly with the cover. So you can easily see if the cover is covering it completely.
A led that turns on when recording is not enough, it's very easy to remove a led from a device.
If you want to not use glass hole glasses for evil, you should want it to be mandatory for other people to see if you're using it for evil or not.
AR could never work by sending a recording to an external server. At least not with available technology. And in fact, you wouldn’t necessarily need to even have image data, lidar would suffice. All handled on device.
Calculating the AR locally doesn't mean that you won't be sending the recording to Facebook.
They don't collect data because it is necessary for the technology they use. They collect data because they sell it.
What are you even talking about? How is being filmed not worse than not being filmed, privacy-wise?