Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- It's so weird to me how people don't like these kind of glasses. They are basically a dash cam for your entire life. Seems like a pretty valuable thing to have.
The only thing I object to is the facebook association.
by BoxwoodSeed - It is cool to be one using them. It is infinitely less cool to be one receiving it. Possibly everywhere consistently... Up your face possibly. Or your family members face...by Ekaros
- OK pervertby HotGarbage
- The weird thing is not recording but secret recording.by Cider9986
- "The only thing I object to is the facebook association."
!!!Exactly!!!
If Apple comes up with smart glasses then user privacy will be job one. For meta it's all about collecting data to sell ads. Period.
by johannesrexx - I don't think anyone's saying that wearing such glasses isn't useful or valuable. The problem is when they're used to include unconsenting others in the data collection. It's massively antisocial.
And it makes a bad situation even worse. It's already very difficult to avoid surveillance systems. I am cautious about what routes I take and where I go in order to minimize my exposure to these systems. If these spy glasses actually approach being common, then it just further reduces where I can safely go in public. At some point, going out in public at all will become infeasible.
by JohnFen - > They are basically a dash cam for your entire life.
Most people don't want this. Dash cams are for safety and legal liability in a very specific and dangerous domain. These "smart" glasses are for wealth signaling and surreptitiously invading others' privacy. Try walking around with your phone camera recording everywhere you go amd see what kind of response you get from people. Meta's device just obscures the fact that that's what the wearer is doing.
by amazingman - It's weird to me that you find that weird. People in general don't like worrying that every little conversation is being recorded.by foobarchu
- A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever; Zuckerberg truly has the remarkable ability to turn to shit anything he touches.
- I think AR glasses are loathed.
But the camera takes this to extreme anti-social levels.
by m463 - I am fairly certain the goal of putting cameras on glasses is to poison the well for the rest of wearable computing while also testing the limits of user acceptance.
They don't care if it succeeds. They just don't want to lose.
by sublinear - It absolutely would not have received a positive reception at an event like DEF CON. They’ve always had a strict photo policy.by bigfatkitten
- I don’t think so, google glass set the precedentby secretsatan
- Google Glass came out in 2013 and got a similar reception.
Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold bulky camera gear, or at least a phone-sized device to do it)
Of course you have the legal right to film people in public spaces in many jurisdictions, but you're likely to be socially ostracized for it (and IMO rightfully so).
by georgemcbay - > A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever
Not at DEF CON, no.
by JohnFen - Google Glass was loathed too. Unfortunately Zuckerberg learned the wrong lesson from its failure - that the issue was that people could recognize the glasses and know they were being recorded and not the actual recording itself.by dabinat
- What will they do when attendees have comparable brain-chip capabilities?by drive-by-dev
- Ban them. Assuming that people installed such brain chip voluntarily I do not see an issue.by jononor
- If they take it to Defcon, they're fair game. Putting your melon on the line in a building full of hackers feels foolhardy.by oliwarner
- There is no such ban at DEF CON. They only ban smart glasses etc. «that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not».
Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED.
So DEF CON has restrictions for photography, but as long as you do not hide your smart glasses' activity LED, you can just walk around and record everything as audio and video?
Full text at https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html:
«Smart glasses and other devices that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not, are prohibited at DEF CON, they erode trust and invade people's privacy.»
(Last paragraph. The other paragraphs refer to photography.)
by chmars - I like how this policy document incorrectly uses commas.
- > Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED.
The LED is neither obvious enough nor reliable enough and by the time you see it, you've already been recorded.
by JohnFen - It’s so weird being in a conversation with someone who is video recording the whole thing.
- It's not a conversation at that point, it's a performance. I walk away.by alwa
- It's a great display of the character of the person. You can learn a lot about their disregard for others. Its been my experience that there's a huge concentration among narcissit midwits with insecurity issues that enjoy these products. Watching their eyes change focus and the unnatural pauses they make is also personally hilarious to me...its like talking to someone that's reading through an article or typing at the same time as talking to you. Gross.by 4d4m