Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Also police have been wearing body cams forever, and no one gives that any bit of thought. If it’s because they think they aren’t perverts I’d like to remind you of the Golden State Killer (former policeman). Besides, you’re not that attractive, or that interesting, and there’s only so many hours in the day and no one would care if you plastered nude pics all over porn hub right now. There’s no such thing as “pervert” glasses”, only people who have some highly important view of themselves that unfortunately the rest of the world doesn’t share. Barring some case of a psychopath stalker of course, but you don’t have to worry about regular folks because they just don’t give a sh@: about you. They have lives and problems to deal with that may have an origin in reality, and supercede your unfounded fears.by johnnyboyj
- So, someone that could open any browser on any device no matter when it is and where they are and type “P” and Google would probably auto correct the “orn” part and see the sexiest women imaginable, doing the exact stuff they’re into, but instead they’re gonna shell out 100’s of dollars for glasses, risk felonies and certain jail time and devise an elaborate plan to covertly film someone on the street who’s likely average or below average looking instead? People who think that they’re just so irresistible that they would embark on a task with so much effort with so many consequences are absolutely insane and completely full of themselves. Pervert glasses? No one is gonna do all that work when they can get the same benefit without even getting out of bed! There’s more people than just you out there and they may need free hands to carry their bags while they’re filming the Giza pyramid. Or whatever it is. But. No one is buying glasses to start a long and difficult road to catch a little glimse of you, that they can watch later at home. Jesus.by johnnyboyj
- I wonder if something like the EURion constellation could be worn to disable recording by unwanted parties.by baaron
- I wonder if Zuck and the C-levels have some sort of beacon that will disable these perv glasses around them (except perhaps a whitelist of users).
If I were a billionaire zunt, I'd do that...
by netsharc - Epstein Glasses is also a good name for them. Glasses for people who don't do consent.by tjpnz
- Look...all Meta developers here down voting your comment.by root-parent
- what you put in, you get out https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/facemashby skor
- And just like the panic over cell phones, this too shall pass.
Maybe half of HN is too young to remember (or old enough to have forgotten?) but when cell phones with cameras were becoming mainstream, there was media panic over them too - people could be discretely filming in bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. There were even a few high-profile salacious stories where people did use their phones to film inappropriately.
And then we collectively decided that having cameras with us was generally beneficial and rarely harmful, and people realized that creeps who wanted to hide hidden cameras could already do so, and we all kinda moved on with our lives.
I can't leave my house without being on a dozen Ring cameras, Flock cameras and probably a handful of satellites, along with devices tracking Bluetooth and WiFi IDs every time I enter a store or a cop car drives by or having my license plate scanned by passing tow trucks. Drawing the line at glasses seems pretty arbitrary.
by marcuskane2 - see also: "Reefer Madness" (1936). What's old is new again.by bookofjoe
- This has been tried before, and Google Glass did not pass.
As others have said across multiple threads here, there is a difference between passive recordings from fixed vantage points made by a property owner (or which are required, as with autonomous vehicles, to make the thing work at all), and having people you're talking to do it. The difference is the social aspect; people who wear them still seem antisocial to the rest of the population. People with normal vision who feel the need to constantly record the world around them from their own vantage point certainly seem creepy to me.
by otterley - I'd love to have glasses that are interface for AI. Mics pointed down towards mouth from the bottom of the front glasses rim. Speakers near the ears. Cameras optional. Display optional, possibly as a simple projector that reflect the image from the concave glass surface of prescription glasses. Long term power and communication through thin cable to battery pack in a holster somewhere on the body to make the frames light and wearable all day.by scotty79
- I'd hate to talk to you or be looked at by you.by aj_hackman
- I think a small speaker should announce, in the local language, "recording in progress" when these are used.by Symbiote
- The shutter sound on cameras (including those built in to a phone) can't be muted in Japanby dymk
- Apparently they already have a blinking white light to indicate that recording is in progress. https://about.fb.com/news/2026/07/metas-ai-glasses-your-ques...by otterley
- I think the location of everyone wearing the pedo glasses nearby should be available in a separate app. If wearers of the pedo glasses are concerned for their own privacy they might consider leaving the pedo glasses at home.by tjpnz
- Better,
"I am John Smith 415-123-4567 abc@123.com 456 Main Street Anytiwn USA and I am Recording everything I can see right now, including your full bodies and children, and storing it online, and training AI with it, without your permission, to be profited on by the Meta Corporation, a publicly traded company. I am John Smith 415-123-4567 ...."
by ncr100 - I wish regulators who failed to ban these things got even half of the backlash. It's not an individual issue.by concinds
- Our idea of a public/private privacy division where private recording is discouraged and public is a free for all really feels dated.
I know personally I'd love to see a private/local/wide distribution division or something like that where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net. There are real harms to being a public figure and the net rarely understands context.
I do have one note on all this though. I think there are some real benefits to being able to record people in public re corruption, criminality etc so I don't think any changes should be about public recording but about distribution instead.
by rdmuser - Good. These glasses are intended for anti-social and predatory uses, with a paper-thin pretence over the top that Meta doesn't understand their market.
A healthy society should push back against things like this.
by Planktonne - Either Mark Zuckerberg is playing an elaborate practical joke on everyone, or this is further proof that the West Coast tech scene has become such a bubble people have lost all sense of how ordinary people think.
There is just no way this was going to fly in 2026 given high and increasing negative sentiment globally towards tech, and I'm not sure what made them think otherwise
by ifwinterco - In the US, Meta sold 7 million glasses units last year and is projected to sell 25+ million next year. Waymos already record everything happening in most of the area of many cities, and use much more than just cameras. 6g standard has sensing built in. Perhaps it is not the West Coast that is in the bubble.by zhoBEENG
- I mean, there isn't even a practical use for this that isn't just non-consensual surveillance. Everyone carries a high-quality camera for making content and image searching already, and Siri and Alexa have already cornered the market (whatever that still exists) on voice assistants. There's a reason why we're not all wearing Google Glasses on our faces...by chazzalpha
- Meanwhile, Tesla drivers are driving around with a dozen cameras mounted on their vehicle pointing in every direction.
Who would have thought that would be socially acceptable in 2026.
by cj