'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#211

Post by alickz » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:08 PM UTC

soraminazuki wrote: post #199

alickz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was a pretty girl that gets stared at I think I'd want to record the ones doing the staring People generally commit less crime if they think they're on camera If they do commit a crime, at least there would be video evidence Or if they just want to be creepy, I'd send those stares to their wife Considering motivated perverts would use hidden cameras, as opposed to cameras literally on their face, I think the asy…

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, considering that's the same old argument that NRA has been making for our entire lives.

I think there's a difference between brandishing a weapon and brandishing a recording device

Unlike the sword, the camera itself does not incite deeds of violence

My understanding at least is that cameras (or even signs) reducing/preventing crime by _some_ amount has been independently corroborated across multiple studies

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#212

Post by jayd16 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #197

jayd16 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because its cool. I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges. You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone. But still,…

All things you can already do with the phone you already own. Only it isn't mounted on the wall I guess. But is that really such a showstopper that demands this technology? You could also get a dummy screen that displays this info. Reminds me of ipad and to a lesser extent, apple watch. It came out with a ton of hype, tons of people got one, only to never really use it because hey, it only does the exact same stuff a…

For the most part, a phone gets you most of the way there. They're currently the apex predators of the mobile space.

I think the one thing that a headset does bring to the table is the hands free nature of it. There are quite a few AR apps and use cases that phones can currently do that fall short because you need to hold your phone out and that's really invasive and fatiguing.

In theory you could have things like a walk through of a DIY engine repair that adds virtual pointers and highlights to important things.

You could do this in a video where you go to your phone, watch a step, rewind, put the phone down, find where in the real world the thing is, do the thing, wipe your hands, pick up the phone, repeat etc. but I imagine it would be nicer in AR.

I'm not saying spend a trillion dollars on this, just that it would be a neat thing.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#213

Post by red-iron-pine » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

ffsm8 wrote: post #208

adolph wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What situations call for "Pervert glasses?"

I think eg police and military personnel should be required to wear cameras while on duty and interacting with people (So not during their whole shift, but whenever they're knowingly entering an interaction) This may be a body camera or a camera built into glasses. That is a very legit usecase as far as I'm concerned. There are other professions in which such a device would be a net benefit, that was just a simple ex…

there are already laws in place requiring police body cameras -- why would they need to wear flimsy glasses instead?

what would these offer that can't already be done w/ their existing solutions, outside of streaming data to evil megacorps?

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#214

Post by petsfed » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

threethirtytwo wrote: post #24

yoyohello13 wrote: post #6

Tech is so frustrating in real life. I feel like we have all the cool sci fi stuff I always wanted, but everything comes with a monkey's paw style gotcha. The idea of meta glasses is so awesome, I want a heads up display to show me whatever I want. But there is no way in hell I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted.

Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women. This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from h…

>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena.

People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim that its solely the victim's responsibility to prevent this sort of thing. But I ask, what is the victim's recourse if they legit do not want to be filmed and broadcast? Just stay home? Are we seriously going to give third-tier facebook-live streamers that much power?

I feel like "if asked, don't monetize content containing others, if the content only occurred because of the recorder's actions". Like, yes, if you're in public, you can be filmed, sure. But if I ask you not to film me, and then you make money off a recording of just me saying "don't film me", that feels less like free speech, and more like monetizing actionable harassment.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#215

Post by dinfinity » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:18 PM UTC

fusslo wrote: post #69

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would use them because the company that makes it can’t be trusted. I think this gets at only half of the problem. Not only can meta not be trusted, even if I trust _you_ if you were friend, I wouldn't trust any _other_ random user of such a product. As such, better to not have such a product around.

I think I agree with this sentiment most. I am having trouble articulating it. I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong. I think that's what culture teaches us about what is and what isn't acceptable behavior, right? Like some places teach us it's rude to speak over each-other. Here in New England it is rude not to. I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses…

> I think wearing smart glasses in some situations is on a scale between rude, offensive, and wrong.

I think we should really make a distinction between products that do and do not have cameras. Most people would probably be fine with the 'smart' aspects of it if it didn't have any video recording capabilities. On the other hand, most of the average people specifically want these things to be able to record videos, so maybe hoping for such devices is a non-starter.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#216

Post by ffsm8 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #213

ffsm8 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think eg police and military personnel should be required to wear cameras while on duty and interacting with people (So not during their whole shift, but whenever they're knowingly entering an interaction) This may be a body camera or a camera built into glasses. That is a very legit usecase as far as I'm concerned. There are other professions in which such a device would be a net benefit, that was just a simple ex…

there are already laws in place requiring police body cameras -- why would they need to wear flimsy glasses instead? what would these offer that can't already be done w/ their existing solutions, outside of streaming data to evil megacorps?

I understood this comment chain to be about the technology archetype of smart glasses with cameras in them, not about Meta glasses.

If it was about the latter then I'd agree that there is no usecase for them

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#217

Post by wombat-man » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:30 PM UTC

JeremyNT wrote: post #187

wombat-man wrote: post #4

I hope one of these companies pulls off a compelling set of glasses with a display and no camera.

These exist already; they're sometimes called "XR glasses." They simply act as a monitor for a connected device. The market is maturing and the hardware is pretty cool. The software situation is pretty dire though; phone OSes don't have a way to use them effectively. Samsung Dex is probably the best experience right now to just use them as a desktop display.

You mean like xreal? I think I'd like something I can wear around a bit more casually. the xreals look great but I need them to get a little higher quality before buying. I would probably use them to watch movies on airplanes, or maybe work from home.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#218

Post by wombat-man » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:33 PM UTC

gavinray wrote: post #128

wombat-man wrote: post #4

I hope one of these companies pulls off a compelling set of glasses with a display and no camera.

Even Realities G2, and MemoMind One + NIMO glasses coming soon. Vuzix Z100 if you can find them anywhere as well... All of these are green LED displays though, not a full color HUD.

I didn't realize even realities was out already, I'll look into it, thanks!

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#219

Post by arjie » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

bjacobel wrote: post #210

arjie wrote: post #126

These glasses are really great to use. The camera is pretty fundamental functionality because you can use it to tell you things about the world around you. At the Vancouver Aquarium we asked about some fish we saw and stuff. I was quite surprised at the speed of the multi-modal model. It recognized the fish type, and then gave us some facts about it. Fantastic stuff, honestly. It's also marvelous for taking videos of…

How do the glasses distinguish between taking videos of your children playing at the park, and taking videos of other peoples' children playing at the park?

Using the same technology that involves a pram distinguishing taking my kids home vs. other kids home. Ancient but reliable.

Re: 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows

#220

Post by therealdrag0 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:39 PM UTC

bjacobel wrote: post #210

arjie wrote: post #126

These glasses are really great to use. The camera is pretty fundamental functionality because you can use it to tell you things about the world around you. At the Vancouver Aquarium we asked about some fish we saw and stuff. I was quite surprised at the speed of the multi-modal model. It recognized the fish type, and then gave us some facts about it. Fantastic stuff, honestly. It's also marvelous for taking videos of…

How do the glasses distinguish between taking videos of your children playing at the park, and taking videos of other peoples' children playing at the park?

They don’t, just like any other camera.