this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
617 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

85804 readers
3041 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“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.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ModernRisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 133 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

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.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 31 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Patrikvo@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

like some tech that disables it or something.

The word you're looking for is "hammer".

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Baseball bats have better range.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 73 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

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)

[–] testaccount789@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 weeks ago

he demanded $7,500 for an interview

Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 60 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

Right? It's a collab between Meta and Ray-Ban ffs, what kind of people did they think were going to be buying them?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 60 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

I'm being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] EatingOnions@lemmy.world 59 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 26 points 3 weeks ago

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/

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago (53 children)

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

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

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.

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

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!?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)
[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a reality where Mark Zuckerberg's dreams come true.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 12 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

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.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If only people would just stop fucking using it. It's still a choice to use it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I never understood why a well-known brand like RayBan would want to be associated with this.

[–] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

They were bought by Luxotica years ago.

[–] queueBenSis@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

as literally almost all glasses brands

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FE80@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

“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?

[–] GreenShimada@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] TheEntity@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

[–] sidebro@lemmy.zip 60 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

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)

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 14 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 26 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kevinsky@feddit.nl 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Who could have seen this coming? Who?

load more comments
view more: next ›