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

Post by abirch » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #185

rurp wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale matters. Parents taking their phones out to record discrete events in a visible way is one thing, and the data may or may not make its way to Facebook. Parents wearing glasses that record and upload 100% of what they are seeing to Facebook is qualitatively different. Similar to how cops getting a warrant and tapping a single person's phone is different from the government spying on all citizens at all times.

Not sure I see the difference. Family uploads photo to facebook friends and family see and facebook scans their face. Video uploaded to meta platform instagram facebook scans there face and no friends and family see and probably no strangers because its a boring video. Probably safer with a stranger considering children attacked by people they know. People should be more worried at facebook scanning faces and linking…

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:08 PM UTC

threethirtytwo wrote: post #175

gamblor956 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone threatens to kill you and you wiretap it as evidence... that evidence is dismissible in court even after said subject (you) was found dead. That's not how the law works in the U.S. or most of Europe. A recording of the defendant threatening to kill the victim is admissible as evidence, especially if the victim winds up dead shortly thereafter. For example, see https://www.thebulldog.law/california-penal-co…

Maybe they make exceptions for murder, but in general, wiretapped evidence is dismissible.

Post by Octoth0rpe » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:12 PM UTC

deltoidmaximus wrote: post #209

aqme28 wrote: post #18

I was trying to brainstorm ways to make these palatable to general society. Because I think this kind of thing is going to happen, but a lot of people (myself included) have a legitimate problem with surreptitious recordings. It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker. Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the c…

The smartphone camera supply chain already made possible easy purchase of miniature spy camera devices of various types, they're all on Amazon. Sometimes they're pretending to be nanny cams or something but others are hidden body cameras or glasses. So pervert glasses already existed and were pretty cheap. The downside with the Meta glasses really is this gives "cover" for wearing these kinds of things. If you caught…

Post by arjie » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:15 PM UTC

tuesdaynight wrote: post #222

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…

I'm sorry, but I was taken aback when I clicked on the link and it was met with a real vídeo of a child. I was sure that it would be a Rick Rolling link or something. Aren't you afraid of exposing your daughter to a bunch of anonymous people on the internet? I understand that you like the product, but not even Mark Zuckerberg uses his kids for marketing

Post by Jcowell » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 8:17 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #61

Meta should use their Kylie Jenner et al connection to design a camera that is both stylish and obvious. AFAICT the main use case for camera glasses is very similar to the "gopro on your helmet" use case for cyclists: - to record cool first-person video to upload to TikTok et al - to warn cars / creeps "I'm recording this and will send footage to the cops" AFAICT, influencers generally want people to know they're inf…