this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
201 points (96.7% liked)

Canada

12299 readers
987 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

To no one’s surprise, women and girls are disproportionately targeted, making image-based abuse not just a technology issue but a gendered form of violence rooted in misogyny and power. In fact, in Laura Bates’ book “The New Age of Sexism”, she cites research that says that of the 96% of deepfakes that are non-consensual sexually explicit images, 99% of those depict women. In fact, most of the apps, bots and websites that will create deepfake explicit images don’t even work on pictures of men.

Deepfakes can be used to humiliate, silence, intimidate, or punish women for speaking publicly, participating online, or simply existing in digital spaces.

In the UK, women have reported being filmed by men wearing smart glasses while being approached in public spaces, with recordings subsequently uploaded to social media attracting sexualised and other gross comments. Similar “pickup” content has emerged in the US, where men have used smart glasses to record interactions with women in airports, gyms, and other public spaces, often turning those encounters into viral online content.

Last year, an Auckland man used the Ray-Ban Smart Glasses to covertly record a sex worker without her consent while she was naked. The recording was detected only because the woman noticed him activating the device (by touching the side of the glasses). He pleaded guilty to attempting to make an intimate visual recording, but was discharged without conviction - to the dismay of the brothel owner.

This is particularly concerning because wearable devices are designed to blend into everyday life. A child may not recognise that a pair of ordinary-looking sunglasses contains a camera. They may not realise they are being recorded, and will have little ability to control what happens to that image/footage afterwards.

Consent becomes much harder to meaningfully give or refuse when recording devices are hidden inside objects that look completely ordinary.

Too often, we're told that women and girls should simply be more careful, more alert, and more aware of their surroundings, remain vigilant, and constantly assess whether they are being recorded, instead of placing responsibility on those who design, deploy, and profit from technologies with foreseeable risks of misuse. The same is true for children and young people, who should not need levels of technological awareness beyond their developmental capacity simply to protect themselves from covert recording.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

We're normalizing the courageous, and morally righteous, act of destroying Flock cameras.

Normalizing the destruction of pervert glasses seems like the next reasonable escalation in that fight.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Forget the glasses.

Can't wear glasses if you don't have ears.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oakley is far ahead of you.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but perverts and sex criminals have been wearing Oakley's for 30 years, so everyone already knows to be weary.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I don't see how being tired is going to help. Maybe they should try being wary instead.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] the_xboxkiller@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There’s a video going around on here where they tell you got to saw them off quietly

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Your going to need something closer to a pruning blade to saw pervert glasses off quietly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 weeks ago

Don’t forget ring cameras!

But yeah, I won’t be upset if we start seeing pervert glasses getting slapped off pervert faces.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

While it is true that nobody should have an expectation of privacy when in public, that doesn't automatically grant you consent to purposely film people in public either.

Filming with these glasses discreetly in public removes that element of choice. People can't consent or avoid something they can't even see happening, like they could if the filming was done with an action cam or with a phone (held normally). Anyone who thinks that violating consent like that is okay is someone I wouldn't want to hang around with.


And sure, maybe most people using these glasses are honest folks that would never film people without consent, or use them for any kind of malfeasance - but to that I'd say, why should everyone else have be at the mercy of your honesty?

That's not a fair deal, and I doubt most of these glassholes would like to be in the reverse situation of being filmed going about their life without their consent.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That's just it though, your consent is entering a public space.

People are recorded on dozens of cameras every day unbeknownst to them.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 14 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I don't know exactly what the laws on this are in Canada, but where I'm from at least (Europe) that's not entirely the case.

Anywhere with CCTV has to have a legible sign declaring the camera on the premises - and the CCTV camera has to be reasonably obvious. And the scope of what those cameras can be used for is limited by law.

Sure, in most circumstances you'll have no choice but to walk through the range of at least some cameras and be recorded - but at least you have the opportunity to be aware of them and their purported purpose (even if most people won't care to).

And that's true for companies or private individuals looking to film public areas too. They have to have obvious signage nearby the area they're recording, and their equipment has to be visible - to give people the opportunity to avoid the area being filmed.


Which is to say that both of those are different to being unknowingly recorded by a private individual with a discreet/hidden camera for a completely unknown purpose.

And no matter the legality, I'd still morally disagree with you. People should always have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to be recorded or not, and unilaterally deciding to take that away is gross.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

In any region intent matters.

No, you cannot leer at women in public with a camera.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (11 children)

Not exactly. You can't be victim of upskirt cameras because you wear a skirt in public.

And good luck to anyone wandering into a children's park wearing these.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

You have no expectation of privacy in public, but that doesn't legalize voyerism - https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

  • (ii) The intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place. (b) Voyeurism in the first degree is a class C felony.
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago
[–] ryan213@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think we should all yell out "Pervert" at anyone we see wearing them in public.

[–] danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Careful they might be into that

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (19 children)

So? You can turn ecstasy into torture, all it takes is conditioning.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I think a good way to combat this, and it should be done now, would be to convince pretty young girls to pull out their phones and record any glasshole they see, while belittling them. Post that shit on TikTok, and laugh. They'll be in public areas, wherever crowds of young people gather.

If we wait too long, and let these become more commonplace the initiative will be lost.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately that may just lead to more young girls getting attacked. The perverts who buy pervert glasses have the emotional intelligence of an angry warthog

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So we're supposed to develop hypervigilance? As someone with cptsd I've been doing that since I was in diapers. It's incredibly taxing for your brain and takes years off your life. Terrible advice. Best thing we can do is publicly shame these people every time we see one. Call them pervert glasses, get mad, if it happens enough times they will get rid of them.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

That's what took them off the market last time. We can do it again.

[–] brax@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't get how Google glass got laughed out of existence, but people are out there champing at the bit to buy Meta spyware glasses... It's fucking insane.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think the corporations have done a great job at normalizing surveillance and anti-privacy in the intervening years. In that time there's also been a huge trend in marketing of getting celebs to do advertisements, which I'm guessing has some effectiveness seeing as it's spread like wildfire in the last several years, and meta's pervertware glasses have a dumbass-spokesperson in someone apparently famous named Kylie Jenner or something like that. I think your question is a good one; I think the answer has is how effective corporate manufacturing of consent has become (and the death of [mainstream] journalism; these days news outlets are just loudspeakers for corporations and politicians, especially in the tech space - critical thought need not apply)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 8 points 1 month ago

Watch these creeps wearing garbage glasses make life so much harder for the folks with low vision.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It was fun while these were just used for sports and actually interesting outdoor activities, it serves me really well while cycling and snowboarding. I gave away the original wayfarer version so my family can experiment with it for accessibility and now I have just the sports version, which hopefully it's too dorky for these pick-up-artist idiots to start popularizing.

Guess I'll have to go back to a go pro in my helmets like a Teletubby… and find a decent combination of open ear headphones and a microphone that works against the wind. sigh maybe if they made a camera-less version that would solve most of it

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I used stuff like that for hands free tourist recordings. I never did anything inappropriate with them. Unless you count the time a cop glared at me for looking at them with a suspect cuffed to a bench...

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah that's a good use case too — though I do remember seeing folks use it to take pictures of things you weren't supposed to (like temples interiors).

The "covert recording" aspect of it is a big problem, but from the privacy standpoint I honestly think this is less worse than walking around with an Insta360 that is literally recording everything. At least for now the Insta360 is less problematic because it's so bulky that it's not as useful for perverts; but in terms of filming a bunch of people out and about without consent it's worse.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Back in 2016 I bought several 'dumb' camera sunglasses. Why? I was going to a spy themed nerd convention and I thought having those would fit the theme. I did use some myself when I went on vacation and used them a POV camera and hands free recording of the places and things I wanted recorded.

They were air-gapped. No Bluetooth or WiFi capability. You had to plug them in to get your stuff out. No cloud storage either. You put in a microSD card.

So I do believe they can have utility... But not in the way these people are using it. Not in the 'always on always listening and always on the cloud' bullshit.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

For the time being and for quite a while, they'll have thick frames. Computers, batteries, speakers, and cameras aren't going to be affordably microscopic anytime soon.

If we start calling out anyone with thick frame glasses, soon people will stop wearing them, unless they're pervert glasses. In a year or two virtually all thick frame glasses will be pervert glasses. They won't be able to hide.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Uhh, designer here. My thick-framed glasses are part of the uniform… ☹️

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

“For the time being”… that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting and doesn’t address to core of rhe issue. What happens when it’s small enough it can’t be obviously seen. Maybe it becomes a contact lens, maybe it can fit on a thin bridge on the nose. The problem still remains to be addressed.

[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So anyone who wears thick framed glasses in general gets attacked by the mob...great fucking solution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do they work when driving? Maybe a sunglass version? That would be handier than window mounted cameras and the like. Fuck 'em if all they're for is privacy invasion. Enough of that shit is enough.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do they work when driving?

Yes

Maybe a sunglass version?

You can get them in sunglasses yes, and prescription lenses. Basically any lens you want.

[–] KulunkelBoom@lemmus.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That I could see as a plus - maybe even base their entire ad campaign around it. Using these as creep show, or worse, should not be allowed. In order to "film"in public an apparent camera of some sort should be used so as to notify those being filmed.

That's fair, isn't it?

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The issue is that regardless of how Meta markets this product, making it sleek and inconspicuous was the whole point. Meta glasses succeeded because they latched on the Wayfarer design which was already widespread and accepted.

Unfortunately being inconspicuous and fashionable also lends itself as means to use these to record covertly. Whatever Meta does to fix this, folks will find a way to work around and disable. The glass already has a flashing light to indicate that it's recording; it's not enough. Creeps are going to creep.

Maybe society just isn't ready for "affordable" recording-capable wearables.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

We're ready to break them, as a last resort.

load more comments
view more: next ›