Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’::These stylish shades may look like a regular pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but they’re actually Meta’s new Smart Glasses, complete with two tiny cameras and speakers implanted in the arms. The wearable tech was unveiled by Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday at the 2023 Meta Connect conference in Menlo Park, California, sparking a frenzy online.
I remember when Google glasses came out, people got assaulted for wearing them
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-woman-says-she-was-attacked-for-wearing-google-glass/
Her Facebook post 💀
“OMG so you’ll never believe this but… I got verbally and physically assaulted and robbed last night in the city, had things thrown at me because of some ---- Google Glass haters,” Slocum posted to Facebook.
Several bars in my city banned people wearing them.
Venues will just need to implement infrared checks at the door.
A simple solution would be to have a red led that displays when recording like video cameras
The fix for that is a Sharpie or electrical tape, like all other LED’s you want to hide.
IANAL
Aren’t there laws about being recorded without permission?
Any evidence gained by illegal means is inadmissible?
deleted by creator
Depends on where you are I think
It’s usually just submitting evidence collected illegally by state agencies that’s prohibited
The Meta smart glasses have a LED, and they claim to detect when it’s covered and asked the user to clear it (not activating the camera) when it’s the case.
But honestly, there are already devices to record people without their consent. Just go to AliExpress and you’ll find devices that don’t even bother adding a LED (because the whole point of the device is stealth filming).
They have lights that pulse around each of the cameras when turned on. Seems like a good enough indicator to me
Next up: a bunch of facebook.posts on how to kill the recording.lights without damaging the glasses…
You mean the ‘off’ light?
Pretty sure these have that
The trick is now you can’t tell. Should it be illegal? Heck yes. Will it? “Hmm … technology, so important … innovation… privacy is dead anyway …. terrorism prevention… “
Should it be illegal?
In the US, it’s been long held people do not have the “expectation of privacy” while out in public. One of the major issues that you’ve kinda touched on is how would it be enforced? So are you opposed to all forms of recording? Or is this more focused on a corporation potentially gathering data on people just by being in public where someone is wearing these?
IMO expectation of privacy is valid, but I believe people should also have the right to reasonably know if they’re being recorded. Recording people in public’s one thing if you have your phone out and are waving it around pointing it at people, but it’s a whole other thing if it’s a concealed or otherwise hidden recording device.
Ring doorbells, and the like, are everywhere. Hell, I had a bear cruise in the dog door a couple of years ago. Neighbors produced security cam pics and I had no clue they had cameras!
At this point, we might as well assume we’re being recorded the moment we step out our front door.
Ah true, I totally forgot about those.
God I don’t like our current timeline 😔
Recording people in public’s one thing if you have your phone out and are waving it around pointing it at people, but it’s a whole other thing if it’s a concealed or otherwise hidden recording device.
What about security cameras? Cameras on cars? What kind of notification should be required?
deleted by creator
I have not, but I will do that. Thanks.
I wonder about that, because how many things are already recording our activity in some way when we’re out in public? And what would “knowing that you’re being recorded” consist of? Like if there’s a security camera on the corner of a building filming the sidewalk, and I don’t see it, is my privacy violated? If someone posts a sign that says “cameras in use” is that enough? It’s just an interesting question because obviously there are a huge variety of recording devices everywhere these days in public and as far as I know there’s really not much in the way of laws dictating how or whether the device owner needs to warn people who may wander into it’s range in public.
When I say to “reasonably know”, I don’t mean everyone must be aware, but moreso that if you look around, not looking for cameras necessarily, you should notice it. The “reasonable person” standard is one that’s commonly used in law, to describe the nature of something, even if the letter of it isn’t necessarily true.
That said, assuming we’re talking American law, this would all come down to case law anyways. A majority of American law isn’t what’s on the books, but what’s worked out in court rooms across the country based on written legislation. Judges end up hashing out what the written law actually intends to mean (or in many cases what it should intend).
For my personal standards, I don’t think even a sign is necessary. So long as it’s in plain sight. Phone cameras are largely identifiable by the manner in which people hold their phones when recording others, so that would also be something I’d consider passing this “reasonable person” standard. Cameras built into pens and sunglasses though are very obviously intended to be concealed, and as such wouldn’t without there being other ways to identify it; such as if it was told to those who’d be in range of the lens that they’d be recorded by this device.
There’d definitely be a lot of back and forth to hash out appropriate legislation, but I think it’s very doable without significantly impacting the daily lives of people today.
I just kind of assume my phone is going to give out more information than a camera ever could, so the very least those companies can do is give me access to that data.
There’s a difference between “on apple’s servers” and “a million people harassing you after being pulled into a Livestream against your will” though.
Both are bad, one is worse.
It’s only valid in private venues. We don’t know when were being recorded now and have not really known for decades. This isn’t going to change anything on that front.
But something to detect their emissions etc in private venues would be a good idea. That or deployable jamming for Bluetooth and WiFi etc on site.
It’s only valid in private venues. We don’t know when were being recorded now and have not really known for decades. This isn’t going to change anything on that front.
Ya, and I think that’s something that should change. I should have the right to, within reason, be able to know I’m being recorded at any time.
It would be a nice to have. But there is no realistic way to do that. It is an unreasonable request. At any point in time when you are outside you are being observed by any number of satellites. Through any number of windows. From all number of arbitrary distances. You may as well request omniscience. Since you have an equal chance of obtaining it.
I think we’re getting to the point where “expectation of privacy” and “expectation of not being uploaded” need to be separated.
I fully agree with the idea that there should be no expectation of privacy in public, but I also don’t think filming some random person and posting them online should be carte blanche allowed.
In the US, it’s been long held people do not have the “expectation of privacy” while out in public.
At the time it made sense. But laws need to change with the times. In the future you’ll have people wearing these shitty glasses with cameras all around you all day every day cataloging your movements and entering them into giant corporate data centers. Something needs to change.
The problem is you won’t know you’re being recorded in private either.
Legally speaking, you pretty much consent to being recorded when you step outside your own private space as far as I know.
Also in the US, there has been this bizarre expectation that “if it’s illegal, it will go away”, which is how we have this shitty War on (some) Drugs, “assault” “weapon” bans, and people thinking that we have to completely outlaw AI.
The tech is here. It’s going to be legal. We just have to figure out how to deal with it.
Why should it be illegal?
It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public. You’re in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance.
Sure some weirdos might I use it for nefarious reasons but if it didn’t exist they would still be weirdos using something else.
People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record. Places where you would not be allowed to hold up your phone or camera and take photos.
The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you demands a change to the legal framework. It doesn’t make sense to hold to laws that were written for an entirely different scenario.
I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance
I’ve seen that fairly often, particularly around political protests, and I’ve never seen a CCTV camera in a public bathroom, locker room, etc.
This tech is an inevitability and the potential legitimate uses are too valuable to ban it outright. But that doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly like a highly-visible camera or cell phone.
People wear their glasses everywhere, including a variety of places where there is an expectation of privacy or where it is otherwise prohibited to record.
VERY solid point.
The introduction of tech that makes it impossible to distinguish between someone minding their own business and someone recording you
This isn’t new tech though. I can record on the down-low now and have been able to for some time.
People attacking Glasses users are ignorant of this fact.
Primate bionic eye implants exist. Consider a future where they are good and look exactly like regular eyes.
It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public.
Depends on your legislation.
Here it’s the other way round.
Right, definitely not the same everywhere in the world. Where exactly is “here” that you’re referring to?
That’s Germany.
Over there
Where is here?
I’m in the UK and it’s legal.
Which 3rd world country? Otherwise you got Brazil (is in some places), Spain, and Switzerland (Gotta love fascist money, money laundering, and nazi gold).
https://www.bobbooks.co.uk/blog-post/10-places-around-the-world-where-photography-is-banned
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements
Germany for example. Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It’s more of a “it really depends” kind of situation, and people might even have the right to defend themselves if you take pictures of them illegally. German source
Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It’s more of a “it really depends” kind of situation,
Those are the same things said in different ways lol. Alas, I cannot speak German.
Pretty sure there are at least some limitations to that. In a public toilet for instance…
The key is the phrasing reasonable expectation of privacy.
A bathroom is such a place where you would reasonably expect privacy.
Ok, now you and I are in a private place. Say, a bar. How do I know you’re not recording me?
A bar, where the public congregates, sounds like a public place (and would be considered so in my country).
I think maybe the terms used are different, but if the bar is a business owned by a private person or company, and is allowed to say who can be in there or not, set dress code, hours, rules about outside food etc, that’s what would be considered a place of business in the US, and those aren’t publicly-owned or considered a public space as far as the rights of those people in that space. I get that “pub” literally means “public” but they aren’t owned by some government entity, you don’t have a “right” to free access to them, and the rules about what can and can’t take place there are set by the private owners.
Which country exactly?
A bar is privately-owned. How is it a public place?
It’s “public”. But that would be the same as filming you in your own house. If it’s a friend you invited over, they could record you and it’s on you to indicate your opposition and kick them out/trespass them should they refuse to comply.
Now in the private bar, the other patrons are allowed to be there and there’s no law prohibiting them from recording (excepting places like a bathroom of course). If the bar tells them not to record, they can comply or be asked to leave. If the bar doesn’t tell them to leave, it’s on you to leave. Consider if a nazi walked into the bar. They have the right to be a nazi and go to bars. Bars have the right to refuse or provide service to whomever (so long as it doesn’t target a protected class). You have no more right to be at the bar than the nazi or person filming (absent some other condition like the bar telling them to leave).
Tl:Dr - it’s not public in the legal sense. However civil law takes over.
I guess you’re speaking for the USA, or whatever country you live in, but @ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world seemed to speak about a different (unspecified) country. We’re left to guess which country…
(also, Godwin’s law still applies lol)
How do you know my phone isn’t just recording you? Doesn’t even have to really be pointing at you to grab audio or perhaps you even in the corner of the frame?
I don’t, but it’s far more likely for me to catch you doing it that way than with glasses.
The bar is a public place in that they allow in the public. You have no expectation of privacy there.
However the bar owner as the owner can explicitly ban photography and that’s fine it’s their bar , but they have to explicitly let people know the rules.
You ever been to a bar or a club? People are talking photos everywhere lol
Point of clarification. It’s not “public” in the legal sense. Might be why you’re catching some downvotes. The rest of it is pretty much on point.
Thanks for the clarification.
Perhaps my wording was poor but I’m not sure why people don’t realise that not all places the public go are public so in those places the rules are set up by the owner.
Have you ever been to a theater? Taking photos is banned despite allowing in the public. Please explain.
Again. The theatre owners set the rules.
The same as your bar example. If you owned a building or business then you can set the rules or make people leave.
IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN
How would banning these be enforceable though? They are only going to get more discreet, they will eventually appear completely indistinguishable from regular glasses.
There are certain ways to detect cameras, such as monitoring for infrared, but that would not work for all camera tech and could be hard to triangulate to exact people in crowded areas. There are also ways to detect electronic devices on a person but doing so could quickly become just as invasive in other ways.
You don’t need the ban to be perfect. Especially if you go after manufacturers, not users. Make it harder for people to do uncouth things. Accessibility is a huge driver of people using things. You might not be able to stop everyone, but you can stop the majority of people.
Thermal cameras are surprisingly good at detecting things that use power. Defeat the camera with another camera 😉
Why should be illegal!?
I think some cameras will “pop out” on your screen if you take a picture of them, right?
What a shitty future ahead of us. “Why are you taking a picture of me?!” “Because you’re wearing some suspicious glasses and I want to make sure that you are not recording me. Yup. There they are.”
Edit: well, after seeing some pictures, you can still tell that the cameras are there. But you have to be looking for them, which is still shitty.
That’s only if it sends infrared signal (for example it has night vision). I don’t think anything will show up with these.
Oh… oh, well.
What will be the new name for Glassholes in the Meta era?
deleted by creator
Boiled the frog too quickly
“They trust me — dumb fucks,” says Zuckerberg
Always good to keep in mind
Alt headline: Dude with boundary issues makes least surprising glasses ever
A quick search on Amazon for “spy camera” finds a bunch of devices small enough to easily conceal inside clothing, built in to pens, and built in to watches. A search for “spy camera glasses” finds exactly that, and most of them are well under $300. We’re already well into the era of being able to film everyone without them knowing.
They aren’t directly connected to a social network and promoted with vast marketing resources however.
I remember playing with one of these about 10 years ago that looked like a car key fob, it recorded somewhat subpar footage in a weird format to a microSD card. A neat novelty but not very practical to use unless you really had a need to do covert surveillance of something, which most people don’t.
However if it’s made to be effortless to push watchable footage to social media, and people are heavily encouraged and incentivised to do so and it’s a different proposition.
I think it is just a matter of convenience. Very few people buy lasers to aim them at airplanes. Give everyone a laser and you’ll get a thousand reports of people aiming lasers at their plane.
Those at least don’t automatically sync to Zuck.
People aren’t a fan of those existing either, but not much you can do about it. At least, you can assume that it’s only a tiny fraction of people who own these devices, let alone carry them around, ready to go.
With these glasses, more people will own them and will have them ready to go, on their nose.Smart glasses outside of specific applications were a fad when Google did them and will continue to be, at best, a fad.
Those cameras only record locally.
These glasses presumably upload every frame to corporate data centers to be cataloged and used to profile the people in the images.
Hidden cameras? They’ve got big ol fuckin cameras on them and apparently a red LED that lights up when in use lol. It’d be easier to secretly film someone by pretending you’re texting on your phone. More ragebait.
You seriously think it wouldn’t be trivial to disable the LED?
And by the time you notice the LED you’ve already been filmed.
It would be trivial to just buy spy cameras already built for spying. The tech already exists
Buddy, have you been on Aliexpress recently? It’s trivial to wire tiny cameras all over your body if you really wanted.
Not that it matters, I can point an 8K cinema camera at you in public, and you don’t legally get a say.
Not that it matters, I can point an 8K cinema camera at you in public, and you don’t legally get a say.
This isn’t the case everywhere. Some places have laws with likeness rights if you try to use the footage in commercial productions.
Two-party consent states also attach legal consequences to secret voice recordings.
This is strictly legally speaking. People can and do violate the law.
New art project!
The LED detects when it is blocked and the device refuses to function until it is unblocked. So no, working around that won’t be trivial, at least until somebody has found a workaround.
If Meta wanted to be really throughout with this, they could also keep record of how often there is an issue with the LED and brick the device and close your account if they detect tempering. The whole “trivial to disable” doesn’t fly in a world of closed ecosystem, locked down hardware and accounts requiring a real ID.
Also you can get spy cameras for $5 from Aliexpress anyway, so why even bother hacking this. Snapchat has some video recording glasses too if one needs an alternative.
The led is a simple transistor that happens to glow, just replace it
Again you can record already without any led while “reading your messages” with your phone. Like I feel they did the expected and necessary.
Plus is not like there isn’t already available pens, USB chargers, watches or whatever they can come up secret cameras, like if the intention was to secretly record somebody they wouldn’t go with this ones disabling the led… plenty of better less suspicious alternatives.
Ray ban have had them for years. I hate meta but it’s not just them.
To be fair that was also a Facebook partnership. This is less news and more product revision
It took me a 3 second google search to find that it doesn’t work with the LED covered.
By the time you notice someone’s phone is out you’ve already been filmed. That’s status quo these days, it isn’t any creepier than every single person walking around with a camera in their pocket.
I imagine it wouldn’t take long until someone finds a way to disable that LED.
looks like a sharpie would do the trick
Doesn’t work while covered, there’s a sensor in the light
Spoof the measured sensor value
Right, trivial. Or just buy a tiny $4 spy camera off AliExpress lol
Exactly. The pearl-clutching over smart glasses is so misplaced. You’re already being recorded constantly in public, what’s the big deal?
Pearl clutching over new tech is the satanic panic of modern times
Y’all use the same vocab religiously, I’m just gonna start training models and feeding it to bots to auto respond to y’all lmfao
I miss when CCTV was a world ending privacy concern. Its gotten so much worse in the last decade.
Perhaps one of the biggest advances in human knowledge is in how to make ultra-slick slippy-slopes for abstract ideas. It seems to me that the most common reason people give for accepting some new bullshit is that we already have some other bullshit which is worse. But it is the accumulation of additional bullshit that has gotten us into this mess. I’m referring mostly to sacrifices of privacy; and to loss of freedom of use in products and software; the ownership being replaced with ongoing fees and subscriptions. That kind of thing.
Incredibly funny to see the NY Post pretend that these glasses were just now “unveiled”. This line of camera-equipped glasses has been around for 2 years now.
It’s not funny. It’s predictable. They’re reporting it because Meta did it. Any time a large corporation does anything, it’s NEWS.
Meta did it last time also.
You’re being filmed everywhere you go and you probably don’t even know it.
Doesn’t make it ok.
Not right in your face at the bar while drunkenly discussing your most regretful one night stands tho.
Not everywhere - not yet.
We’re all part of the Truman show.
Not a thing was learned from Google Glass huh? Alrighty then.
I almost like the idea of augmented reality with similar tech. I’d love it if I could look down the street and see historic photos of building overlaid perfectly.
The issue isn’t the technology, it’s the people who are supplying it and it’s connection to the Internet and sharing. I don’t trust Google and I don’t trust Meta.
I was referring to the privacy issues of Google Glass. I’m with you on the trust factor of these two companies.
Would be cool if we got some open source glasses. If Niantic made glasses for Pokemon Go, Google is their parent, no bueno.
Niantic’s been an independent company since Alphabet was formed almost a decade ago and they were spun out.
It’s not even that for me. Just don’t put a camera on the front.
That defeats the purpose of augmented reality glasses if they can’t see in front of you.
They still have GPS, gyro, and a screen (well, Glass did, not this FB thing), they know where you are and can access local geodata. These things aren’t proper AR anyways like the Microsoft or Apple things that are set up to superimpose virtual content on top of IRL content, Glass was basically just a smartwatch for your face.
I think the lesson they learned from Google Glass is that the glasses have to be cooler, not make you look like a nerd, and the technology has to be way better.
Google Glass at least had a screen. This appears all phony based
Cant believe I had to scroll down to see this.
I read the headline and thought, “this again?”
deleted by creator
That’s not even a real thing!
Google glass 2.0
We were rightly worried about Google glass, we had no idea there was something even worse on the horizon
Just saying, hidden cameras have been a thing long before the internet was invented
Bad people doing bad things is nothing new.
But these things allow good, otherwise well-intentioned, people, to become unwitting moles for Meta.
This is an excellent point +1
Already done by having Facebook, Threads, or Instagram on your phone
But even if I don’t, others will infringe on my privacy if they wear those glasses in my vicinity
Same if they record you on their phone.
I would argue that that’s more obvious, the phone/gopro/cemera is up there and you know you are potentially being recorded. Also that’s in the user’s control (i.e. they’ll need to intentionally record).
Here, given Meta’s greed, we could have a potential subtle and not so obvious recording/surveillance. How would you tell if someone passing by is recording, wearing glasses is pretty common.
So the tldr is that I argue it’s not the same because it’s not obvious and/or frequent as it is with a camera/phone
My argument is that there are not only things that people intentionally publish, but also audio and video recordings that may be being collected on people without their knowledge and could also capture other people near them.
I can’t imagine being friends or even acquaintances with a person who would want to live stream their POV as a day to day activity.
I wouldn’t either, although I can see the appeal for moment capture and some of the other cool features.
However I would never even consider this product, because it’s meta spyware garbage.
NYPost is right wing trash.
NYPost.
come on now
‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’ Implying that we dont already have cameras always with us, and can perfectly do that.
Yeah I’m confused. I can already do this and no one notices. Start a stream on my iPhone, slip it into my shirt pocket with the camera facing forward. Never had anyone complain, and it’s easier to talk to my spouse about what they want from the store.
Are you referring to phones or the CCTV monitoring culture…?
Yes!
Not all surveillance is created equal.
A bunch of corporations been recording me and using my data for their own gain for a decade. Now you tell me some normie is going to record me? Do I care?
