this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
445 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

85108 readers
4192 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
[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 2 points 56 minutes ago (1 children)

It'll only be a matter of time before some gross troglodyte makes an app for the glasses that will use AI to simulate what everyone would look like naked.

You know that will happen.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 minutes ago

I assume it already has. Wasn't this in the news already?

[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

Who could have seen this coming? Who?

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

Does anyone have a Cyberpunk glitch-face counter we can start wearing to avoid facial recording?

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Absolutely disgusting.

[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 5 hours ago

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

[–] Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 18 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 7 points 4 hours ago (2 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 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] tektite@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 minutes ago

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.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Hindsight is 20/20 but only few, if any, expected how big of a giant piece of shit Facebook will become and especially its founder. Most people thought it is just another fad, and expected it will go the way of most other social media sites at the time such as Friendster, Bebo and MySpace.

[–] Railing5132@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Zuck was always a giant piece of shit. On discussing the information its first users' willingness to give personal details to The Face Book back at (?) Harvard (?) he said: "... They just send it to me. They trust me. The dumb fucks."

He was mask-off from the beginning. We're (society, not addressing anyone individually) just really blind to threats when distracted by shiny, noisy crap.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's kind of like survivorship bias: The ones who rise to the very top must be the most ruthless and biggest pieces of shit. It's like taking 20 trials to rise to the top, and to succeed each trial fucking others over and only concerning yourself with your advancement is beneficial. It only leaves the worst.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 3 hours ago

It certainly paves the way for kakistocracy

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 28 points 8 hours ago (18 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

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours 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.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago

The article is about people being filmed in public places though.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 hours ago (1 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 4 points 5 hours 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 (16 replies)
[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world -4 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

This practicality has reportedly allowed some men in Brussels to secretly record women in public spaces.

You have no expectation of privacy in public places. In fact, if you’re in a public place you should assume you’re being recorded.

This tech has privacy concerns for sure, but this isn’t it.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

In Belgium people do have an expectation of privacy in public, what they did is straight up illegal under Belgian law. If they want to film or photograph a person (not as an accidental passerby, but as the subject as was the case here), then they need to get consent from that person. If they want to share that footage online, then they need consent for that as well.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Doesn’t seem that straight forward from the article. It says you “generally” need consent, and that was said in regard to “filming and publishing”. What about just filming? The “generally” makes me think that this isn’t breaking any laws unless they publish it without consent.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I disagree. If you have thousands of these and some program live cross-matching and correlating everything about everyone, it is a different problem from "being seen in public" or even traditional street cameras. Before, they could investigate a limited number of people, so they had to focus on suspects and a case. Now they just mass trawl everyone's lives simultaneously.

[–] GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Who is “they” here?

The fact is that if you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy………because you’re in public.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

In the US that won't pass muster, laws aren't the same everywhere.

load more comments
view more: next ›