“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 178 points 3 months ago (22 children)

Who would’ve known this would happen? Everyone. Meta knew people would use it for the bad and they still decided to go on with it because money.

Hope there will be a way to prevent being recorded, like some tech that disables it or something.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 91 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    There was a similar news article in Germany a few days ago. It was about a "pick-up artist/dating coach/influencer" named Erick Ronaldo secretly filming some girl at the Oktoberfest and posting it to his channel where that girl was ridiculed in the comments. (Fun fact: when the news media approached that guy and asked for a statement, he demanded $7,500 for an interview - which they, of course, didn't pay)

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 81 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 69 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    I'm being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 68 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 52 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (9 children)

    The free app NearbyGlasses can detect their Bluetooth signal and tell you if someone is wearing them in range of your phone.

    This could save you from being filmed by influencers, or creeps. Let the women in your life know.

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 51 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I never understood why a well-known brand like RayBan would want to be associated with this.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 48 points 3 months ago (59 children)

    I understand how creepy this is but why is this any different than the 1000s of cameras on poles literally everywhere these days. Neither of these should be acceptable

  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The cameras on poles can't see literally everywhere, and can't physically follow you around.

    And the cameras on poles have (at least in theory) regulations and laws governing how their footage can (and cannot) be used.

    MetaCreepSpecs don't have any such restrictions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Completely agree, but because another bad thing exists, it’s no reason not to care about this bad thing.

    These are also separate (but obviously related) issues. The flock and other surveillance cameras are about control and, well surveillance. These meta glasses are about personal interactions and predatory behavior of creepy people. They are also markedly different than cameras in phones, since they are much more obvious that they are recording.

    They both need to go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (47 replies)
    [–] 37 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (12 children)

    The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a reality where Mark Zuckerberg's dreams come true.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    If only people had said "no thanks, I'm good" when Fakebook rolled out. Of course something else equally as shitty would have probably taken its place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago (26 children)

    “Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

    Isn't this all public cameras?

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Except that these cameras easily go anywhere, they aren't just outside on the street.

    Spas? Pools? Gyms Locker rooms? Find a nice spot sitting on a bench near a women's dressing room at the mall that peeks in a bit? Set your glasses at your side and record while you look ahead at your phone, not freaking anyone out. They're pervert enablers just as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 25 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, in a way.

    Privacy laws are a little complicated but not that bad.

    In this case Europe sees filming in public, while concealing the fact, not legal.

    Conversely, if you are filming and it is very clear that you are(ie a camera, film crew etc) and you are not singling out anyone who doesnt want to be recorded then it is perfectly legal to film in public.

    Do you see how it works now and how these Ray-Ban glasses go against this?

    Its legal to record in public as long as you respect the privacy of others. Of course they can always be a background figure if they are not focused on but making them the star of your production without consent makes it very illegal and immoral in my opinion.

    Have a great day!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 29 points 3 months ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    No, consent is saying yes or no, not wether or not I see a small LED (which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] [S] 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

    No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological "advances", and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone's attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don't because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.

    You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 3 months ago* (8 children)

    It's the whole entire point of these glasses so this surely cannot be a surprise.

    I'm just waiting for bans on these glasses now, because that is inevitably where this is headed as the public at large simply cannot be trusted to handle this kind of technology responsibly.

    And the harder these glasses become to spot, the broader the bans will be, undoubtedly right up the point where they'll just straight up refuse anybody with any kind of thick framed glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 14 points 3 months ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they're flagged for secretly recording, convictions, ... A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Look, if someone is wearing these and not announcing it, i'm going to punch them. When people get their shit lit up over this, people will get the message.

    We need to nationalize two-party consent for this

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 12 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Idk. Bans on recording someone in public without their consent, feel like a really difficult thing to properly enforce -- with or without the glasses. The number of people doing it with Smartphones already, in most jurisdictions at least, would make such a law's wide-spread enforcement seem implausible. And I mean, you're in a public area, so you sorta need to expect less privacy.... because it's in public?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›