This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Who would’ve known this would happen? Everyone. Meta knew people would use it for the bad and they still decided to go on with it because money.
Hope there will be a way to prevent being recorded, like some tech that disables it or something.
There are lights that work on some cameras. I'm not sure which (infrared, I think prolly others). Search the web. They exist. But how are you gonna have that at all times everywhere? Easier to set the Meta HQ on fire. And that's prolly not easy.
like some tech that disables it or something.
The word you're looking for is "hammer".
there are open source android apps that tell you when a meta rayban is nearby (using the phone's ability to scan nearby bluetooth devices) which isn't really good enough but it's something i guess
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
if you're a woman and the creep is a man, there's always the option of pepper spray i guess, though then you will have to justify yourself somehow. i don't think predominantly male chud cops will accept the reasoning of "i feel unsafe" from women, even if it's true and valid.
as for impractical ideas, you can always carry around a 5W laser pointer and then try and fry the camera. of course does not work irl.
There was a similar news article in Germany a few days ago. It was about a "pick-up artist/dating coach/influencer" named Erick Ronaldo secretly filming some girl at the Oktoberfest and posting it to his channel where that girl was ridiculed in the comments. (Fun fact: when the news media approached that guy and asked for a statement, he demanded $7,500 for an interview - which they, of course, didn't pay)
he demanded $7,500 for an interview
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
Right? It's a collab between Meta and Ray-Ban ffs, what kind of people did they think were going to be buying them?
Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles
Didnt that already get done to demonstrate the complete lack of privacy caused by this?
Checking....
Yeah this was what I was thinking of: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/rsac-meta-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-hacked-live-demo-2026/
The free app NearbyGlasses can detect their Bluetooth signal and tell you if someone is wearing them in range of your phone.
This could save you from being filmed by influencers, or creeps. Let the women in your life know.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable
The cameras on poles can't see literally everywhere, and can't physically follow you around.
And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.
MetaCreepSpecs don't have any such restrictions.
It wouldn't historically be crazy to take your sunglasses into a locker room or bathroom, for example. Now? WTF DUDE. YOU SOME KIND OF CREEP!?
The cameras on poles are meant for public spaces and security. Meta glasses are for whatever the fuck the wearer will intend the recordings for for private use.
Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.
These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.
They both need to go.
The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a reality where Mark Zuckerberg's dreams come true.
If only people had said "no thanks, I'm good" when Fakebook rolled out. Of course something else equally as shitty would have probably taken its place.
If only people would just stop fucking using it. It's still a choice to use it.
I quit facebook about 15 years ago. I still have people trying to share facebook links with me or suggesting I make a fake account for whatever bullshit reason they think I need one. Even reasonable and well-educated people in my life don't seem to understand the purpose of not having facebook is not having fucking facebook.
I never understood why a well-known brand like RayBan would want to be associated with this.
“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”
Isn't this all public cameras?
Except that these cameras easily go anywhere, they aren't just outside on the street.
Spas? Pools? Gyms Locker rooms? Find a nice spot sitting on a bench near a women's dressing room at the mall that peeks in a bit? Set your glasses at your side and record while you look ahead at your phone, not freaking anyone out. They're pervert enablers just as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.
Yes, in a way.
Privacy laws are a little complicated but not that bad.
In this case Europe sees filming in public, while concealing the fact, not legal.
Conversely, if you are filming and it is very clear that you are(ie a camera, film crew etc) and you are not singling out anyone who doesnt want to be recorded then it is perfectly legal to film in public.
Do you see how it works now and how these Ray-Ban glasses go against this?
Its legal to record in public as long as you respect the privacy of others. Of course they can always be a background figure if they are not focused on but making them the star of your production without consent makes it very illegal and immoral in my opinion.
Have a great day!
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No, consent is saying yes or no, not wether or not I see a small LED (which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual)
which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual
You don't need to be too savy to put a little piece of black tape over it
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological "advances", and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone's attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don't because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.
A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.
You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?
It's the whole entire point of these glasses so this surely cannot be a surprise.
I'm just waiting for bans on these glasses now, because that is inevitably where this is headed as the public at large simply cannot be trusted to handle this kind of technology responsibly.
And the harder these glasses become to spot, the broader the bans will be, undoubtedly right up the point where they'll just straight up refuse anybody with any kind of thick framed glasses.
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they're flagged for secretly recording, convictions, ... A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
Who could have seen this coming? Who?
