Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses have earned the nickname “pervert glasses” — and a journalist’s firsthand account reveals exactly why. Wearing them didn’t just feel creepy; it made her start thinking like one. I break down the real surveillance threat these glasses pose, Meta’s data exploitation playbook, and what we can actually do about it.
No BS title should be: Creeps are using Zuckerberg’s bad, unregulated tech to amplify their perversion and fetish.
Yeah. These people always WERE creeps. They just have a way to express it without getting their asses kicked now.
Shit should be illegal. Stop it before it becomes a major problem.
was this not the case with google glasses last decade.
no, because that was shitty resolution from an absolutely tiny camera. it should have set a standard but was so distinctly obvious externally and useless for the task that it didn’t trigger the response I guess.
this shit absolutely can ‘pass’ and should be banned posthaste.
Had Google had access to the camera sensors and the smaller, more powerful SOCs we have today, they absolutely would have produced exactly what Meta did.
most def, but it wasn’t and they didn’t. hence the shitty comparison.
Google is all shades of terrible when it comes to privacy invasion, and they will stop at very little to get their grubby mitts on your personal data. But even they realized the perv glasses weren’t good publicity and pulled the plug. Hell, I remember Google Glasses wearers getting their teeth knocked in when they walked into public places.
Zuckerberg and Facebook don’t even rise to this minimal level of corporate image self-preservation: they just want the data, decency be damned.
The camera only makes you feel like a creep because they’ve told you it’s there.
These could be fucking really cool for POV recording of motor and other extreme sports, or making tutorials, or lots of other perfectly legitimate things, but no, they get used for creepshots.
I find it interesting the double think of “all cops need bodycams” and “no civilians should have glasses with bodycams”
Body cams are out in the open and their videos are (at least in theory, depending on jurisdiction) open to public review. These will be used for clandestine recording and will spend most of their time staring at women’s cleavage. Hope that helps.
Do you think glasses on peoples faces aren’t out in the open?
And like I mentioned in my other reply, it’s not like we don’t have numerous examples of bodycam footage going missing or “accidentally” being disabled.
While yes creeps are going to creep, I don’t know banning the idea of the technology entirely is the right way to go about preventing that, especially considering there’d a large amount of potential positive benefits on the contrary.
For example (again in my other reply) alternate angles/footage in relation to some sort of investigation, or just general everyday nifty stuff like AR HUDs.
Idk, sometimes it seems like people jump to banning things because a small group of people will misuse it, instead of trying to prevent that misuse, particularly prevelant these days.
Idk, sometimes it seems like people jump to banning things because a small group of people will misuse it, instead of trying to prevent that misuse, particularly prevelant these days.
I think what you’re arguing is really what is peoples’ reasonable expectation to not be recorded in public. In the general sense, people do not have that legal right. I’m allowed to just go outside and record a video on my phone and whoever happens to be in it happens to be in it. Whether its legally codified or not I de facto have the right to do that, and you don’t have the right to tell me to stop (up to the point where I follow someone and it gets to legal harassment).
So on this point you’re 100% right in terms of how things are.
Do you think glasses on peoples faces aren’t out in the open? While yes creeps are going to creep, I don’t know banning the idea of the technology entirely is the right way to go about preventing that, especially considering there’d a large amount of potential positive benefits on the contrary.
I don’t see the inherent societal value in clandestine recording ability being everywhere. I can see that it would have some value sometimes, but this won’t be a few creeps. Adoption of this tech will be led by creeps. That will be the primary use case.
But I suppose this discussion doesn’t matter since eventually this tech will be so easily accessed that it will become the reality no matter what anybody thinks.
The camera is pretty easy to miss, especially if you don’t know what to look for. So yes, it is out in the open, but hidden in plain sight is still hidden.
Yeah, is there possibly a way to make it obvious that it is able to be recorded? I’d imagine at some point in the future it’ll be the norm/expected, much like bluetooth headsets were loathed by many back when they first came out and it was hard to tell if someone was talking to you or on a bluetooth call lol (also it usually being corpo asshole types lol).
You don’t see any difference between ordinary citizens and police officers? Really?
I’ll spell it out for you: police officers benefit from the presumption that their actions are justified in court. It takes an extraordinary burden of proof to contradict a cop’s word.
That’s why they should be strapped with body cams - and they shouldn’t be allowed to turn them off, if you ask me: the cameras keep them in check and give ordinary citizens a tool to fight back bad policing.
Except we’ve seen numerous examples where woopsie the bodycam was off or the footage mysteriously was corrupted, would be a bit different if we also had civilian footage that contradicts it, think about how many cell phone videos have proven a cop was lying about a situation and apply that further.
I guess I just feel like it’s a little overblown on the downsides with creeps being creepy, which they could already easily do with a cellphone or real cameras.
One is at work, often with weapons that can kill people and need to be recorded. The other has certain rights (in theory, but not practice)…
