Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 207 posts

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#181

Post by array_key_first »

ghaff wrote: post #113
objcts wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is this the future we actually want???? or one that is truly inevitable and can’t be stopped?

Want? I don't know. Outside of draconian regulation and punishment I don't see how you really stop aside from some level of social pressure/norms which can work to a degree. (No, you don't film/livestream the dinner party among friends that you are at.) People post photos from social events all the time. That ship has mostly sailed. Video and audio is mostly just an additional increment.

I'm not understanding how limiting data collection is draconian regulation.

Recording in public is a huge problem overall and is slowly decaying our society. People don't do anything anymore because nothing is sacred. Have you been to a club lately? It's just a room of 500 people standing there.

It gets worse the younger and younger the people are. Kids these days are too petrified to leave their homes. Every aspect of their person is under constant scrutiny.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#182

Post by godelski »

moritzwarhier wrote: post #153
LocalH wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to be able to use glasses with a camera, in situations which warrant it, to prevent people from gaslighting me or others about our conversations. Something like you see in dashcams, where it's always recording to a circular buffer of a few seconds to a minute, and then one can then enable "full" recording which dumps the buffer to storage and then starts saving everything until disabled. I also live in a US st…

Sounds dystopian to me, I'd want to reconcile it by not allowing "one-party consent" for people to record me. Not sure if the state laws you're referencing are in reality limited to phone calls, but I strongly dislike unregulated public camera use. Your vision (no pun intended) is the story of the Black Mirror episode "The entire history of you", IMO from the show's golden age. edit; I know that surveillance cameras…

  > Sounds dystopian to me
1984? It's not the only surveillance state story. Everyone loves when you can dig up something from decades ago that is no longer representative.

Cameras everywhere just keeps everyone honest, right? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? What's acceptable now will always be acceptable in the future, right? My mind never changes, whose does?

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#183

Post by paul7986 »

dblohm7 wrote: post #149
paul7986 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is the privacy company already .. that's their brand and a brand that the public trusts. Overall why are we not up in arms about all the video cameras that record in all cities everyday which companies like Clearview and others have our public images in their databases yet we are up in arms about smart glasses? THis is a solution to this public debate and Apple hasnt released their glasses yet and they are a pr…

> Apple is the privacy company already .. that's their brand and a brand that the public trusts. ...for now. What happens if they end up with a future CEO who is more like Zuck?

lol overall this argument is silly the genie is out the bottle and in five to ten years smart glasses are the norm. All you laggards will be wearing them too and or many close to you will be wearing them. Go ahead and downvote me but in five to ten years you know i am right ;)

Reminds me of my 24 year old niece in which her and her friends hate chatGPT/AI. Hippies fighting technological progress futilely. Like the iPhone haters of 2007 to 2010!

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#184

Post by Anon1096 »

nullpxl wrote: post #177
Anon1096 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't stream to your phone when taking a video or picture. The data is on device and transferred later. It also uses wifi direct not BLE. It seems many many people on HN have absolutely no clue how the meta glasses work lol, there's barely any accurate information in this thread.

Like I mentioned in the text, I haven't looked into Wi-Fi yet. The picture/video -> transfer through the app is correct, and why an alternative method for detecting actual recording is necessary, but I'd expect to see that most events like battery status updates would be over directed BLE, since the initial boot + battery status is broadcast. And likely BTC for streaming audio. I'm unfamiliar with Wi-Fi Direct specif…

Sorry don't mean to demean your effort, I read the GH post and like the hacker spirit :D. It's the rest of the people in the HN comments with 0 clue.

I like my glasses and don't really agree with your goals (nor see the point of letting you know when someone's wearing them; in my city your device would be beeping constantly) so I'm not interested in helping unfortunately. But I do wish you luck, as I said I like the spirit.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#185

Post by [deleted] »

godelski wrote: post #182
moritzwarhier wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds dystopian to me, I'd want to reconcile it by not allowing "one-party consent" for people to record me. Not sure if the state laws you're referencing are in reality limited to phone calls, but I strongly dislike unregulated public camera use. Your vision (no pun intended) is the story of the Black Mirror episode "The entire history of you", IMO from the show's golden age. edit; I know that surveillance cameras…

> Sounds dystopian to me 1984? It's not the only surveillance state story. Everyone loves when you can dig up something from decades ago that is no longer representative. Cameras everywhere just keeps everyone honest, right? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? What's acceptable now will always be acceptable in the future, right? My mind never changes, whose does?

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#186

Post by hackingonempty »

littlestymaar wrote: post #100
hackingonempty wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.

Some right to record in public may be protected by the current jurisprudence invoking the first amendment, but the first amendment itself obviously doesn't say anything about the right to record in public: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,…

Recording is writing, which is speech, which is protected.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#187

Post by ajsnigrutin »

circuit10 wrote: post #69
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".

You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?

There's a difference between taking a photo of eg. random people on the street (eg. trying to show someone that there's a big crowd at the bus station) and recording 24/7 the same bus station. A single photo held by a single person makes it hard to establish movement patterns etc. for those people, while a 24/7 recording can be used for creating a database of all those people coming and leaving.

There are many nuances in privacy law, not just pertaining to photo vs. 24/7 recording, but also expectation of privacy, intent, etc. Taking a photo of some random touristy area with people there is ok, singling out a person is not. Same for eg. taking a panoramic shot of a city where someone just happens to be undressing by the window in one of the buildings in the photo, vs using a telephoto lens pointed at that persons window... so, were you taking a touristy photo vs intending to violate their privacy.

Same nuances, mostly regarding intent appear in other laws too.. you can walk in public, you can stand in a public location, you can work the same shift as your coworker and walk the same path as them, since you both finished work at at the same time. But under slightly different circumstances that same "walking down a public road" or "standing in a public location" can be interpreted as eg. stalking if done with different intent.

That's why there are signs at every store entrance about video surveillance, even though it's private property, they must give info to customers who the contact person for the recording is and they need to have some kind of a retention policy defined for those recordings, and even then they cannot record in areas where people expect privacy (bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc.).

So yeah, taking a random photo of your street is not problematic, since it's "random" and done for other reasons (eg. tourism) while recording 24/7 is gathering enough data to be possibly problematic. Some streets (eg highways) are under video surveillance, but there are signs saying that when you enter the highway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mj3GjA7m8BLwUfs77

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#188

Post by nimih »

consp wrote: post #83
card_zero wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially as much as none, because it's UV that does the damage?

At some point it pretty much becomes a microwave. Radiation get absorbed and turned into heat. On a small scale not very helpful or harmful. On a larger scale nice to heat your food with but not your head.

You'd have to be moving pretty fast to red-shift IR radiation into microwaves, I think.

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#189

Post by threecheese »

nickthegreek wrote: post #125
threecheese wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a feature Meta has implemented, but those protections were quickly defeated.

They were not quickly defeated. And as it stands currently, I thought there was only 1 somewhat involved hardware mod that worked. as opposed to any spy cam that you can guy purchase from amazon for a fraction of the cost.

My social media algorithm may be tricking me into thinking it’s more ubiquitous than it is, but i was fed quite a bit of content about it until I ‘dislike’d it into oblivion (its a norms change i am not aligned with).

Re: Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

#190

Post by _aavaa_ »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #124
tjpnz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Massive problem in Japan where the issue of sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. I suspect it's one of the reasons why Japan isn't on the list of supported countries for the Meta glasses. I hope it stays that way.

> sex pests and covert recordings comes up every other day in the media. These are also issues where we live, they just don't get the same media attention.

Do companies sell phones/cameras that take photos without making a sound? Cause they all make sounds in Japan because of how bad the sex pest problem is.
Post reply on HN