this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
182 points (98.4% liked)

Not The Onion

22457 readers
2554 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 4 points 20 hours ago

In 2016 there was a spy themed nerdy convention I was going to. As a way of getting into it. I ordered a lot of what I thought was fun spy gear. Camera sunglasses, camera wristwatches, camera pens, etc.

They worked (the pens... Their vest clip is the worst thing! I cannot put it anyway). They were low res. But I will say they this: they were 100% airgapped. No Bluetooth or WiFi. And you had to pull the data with a cable (it stored the stuff on a removable microSD card). Unhackable and private, basically.

I wish I kept a pair of camera sunglasses. I used them when on vacation to record things hand free (the camera was on the nose bridge, between the eyes) and I took some nice stuff going through the streets and in a museum (where we are allowed to film).

I also did people that they were camera glasses and pointed out where the lens was. Many were surprised but didn't care too much. In 2016, same year I got them. I was in Chicago and I did film a cop with someone they arrested and had cuffed to a bench. The cop glared at me when he caught me looking at him. He was entirely unaware I was filming him.

The only other case I heard of at that time of someone using camera glasses was some guy in Australia who was being racially abused by his neighbors (he was Indian I think) and had camera glasses on all the time to record his neighbors when they were being assholes to him so he can report them.

I gave those glasses away a long time ago. I wish I hadn't. All the new shit is unacceptable with a forced cloud upload and easily hackable.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a strong argument for Meta glasses...

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Meaning meta has an incentive to popularize this perspective…

[–] TheAsianDonKnots@lemmy.zip 53 points 1 day ago

Almost like they have something to hide.

[–] Iori_Yagami_Fighter@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes, recording is OK only for them, not for you. Got it.

[–] fyzzlefry@retrolemmy.com 3 points 1 day ago

Always has been

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If this is a ploy by meta to get me to root for their shitty surveillance glasses, it’s not going to work…

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 2 points 20 hours ago

Buy the Alibaba version, problem solved!

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they had a Linux driver or there were other glasses that were free...

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago

... then the chuds wouldn't have to tape the LEDs, but the privacy implications would be unchanged.

[–] viral.vegabond@piefed.social 49 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No headline will get me to hate these abominations less.

[–] borkborkbork@piefed.social 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the worst are the chuds who scream 'you have no expectation of privacy!' or 'they're no different than a smart phone' jfc... as if there aren't laws against voyeurism and harassment... and of course the first thing the chuds did was disable the recording lights. and meta keeps putting face ID shit into the APIs but swearing it's not being used. like anyone would trust meta when it comes to privacy.

fucks sake it's all so fucking gross.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

I worked with a guy like that. A guy who believed that flock cameras zooming in on people and even looking at what they are seeing on their phones, as well as ring camera documenting EVERYONE who passes by, is fine. Because no privacy in public in their minds.

I am in Canada and they were Canadians, too. Flock isn't a thing in most of Canada. Also he defended the felony murder rule even though it hasn't been law in Canada since 1991 and was never done the same way as it was in the US. I cited cases of felony murder in the US (real cases) and he refused to believe any of them for some reason.

Oh no, the government surveillance fascists and the corporate surveillance fascists are fighting.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is so ironic. “We want Traffic Cameras so we can monitor what everyone does, but we don’t everyone to see what we do.”

If they ban PervGlasses, they will also need to ban all the different variants of PervCameras.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

Nah. They won't ban pervglasses. They will regulate so that Meta has to delete local files when they record police, but keep the online version available to police requests only.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago

There's earbuds now too

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 day ago

"Remember that unless you do something bad, you have nothing to fear from surveillance."

That is what has been claimed by the authorities for decades, so clearly they are worried about nothing.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Nice try, meta

[–] Reverendender@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago
[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Go flock yourselves.

[–] csolisr@hub.azkware.net 9 points 1 day ago
[–] MantisToboggon@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Everyone does...

[–] Ashiette@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago