- lemmelemmy@feddit.orgEnglish7 days
I love the fact lately meta glasses are called pervert glasses constantly.
- YeahToast@aussie.zoneEnglish7 days
I personally hate the fact that capatilists have fucked our trust so much we can’t have augmented reality glasses. I was really looking forward to that.
- 7 days
If they were only just that, AR.
Instead they’re “record everyone around you without their consent and post the footage online without their consent to be commented on and shared by others” glasses.
- Landless2029@lemmy.worldEnglish6 days
These camera lenses are nowhere near AR.
MS HoloLens was the closest we got and it was targeted at businesses. Flopped badly. Died.
6 daysIf someone other than Microsoft managed it, it might have gone farther, honestly. Nobody kills a good idea as efficiently as Microsoft.
- 6 days
MS usually does it before anyone else, releases a product, fails to market it, product dies to exec cutback, then three years later Apple does it and it’s amazing.
Apples business models has always been about figuring out why something a competitor did flopped then fixing the flaw (either by improving the tech or just better marketing and management). The industry feeds apple as much as they steal from it. It’s a slow grown company.
Microsoft is basically “we were really aggressive back in the day, established a monopoly everybody hates, and cannot figure out how to compete with modern alternatives in a way that won’t piss off investors”.
Apple is no saint, but they never lied about what they were doing. Microsoft, on the other hand, deserved everything that happened to them.
- Pycorax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish6 days
It wouldn’t have flopped if they didn’t just gave up on it. They were so far ahead of everyone else but just like they did with WP, they refused to continue building up its potential.
We need an Open Source version of these glasses. It’s the only solution that will work.
- barryamelton@lemmy.worldEnglish6 days
Open source doesnt solve them having a camera and recording everything.
No but at least the data isn’t being immediately uploaded to Meta / Google / Apple or whatever for storage and processing.
If they are Open Source it also opens the door for some kind of control device that a person could have that broadcasts a “Do Not Record” signal that could in theory prevent Open Source glasses from recording in your presence. That kind of thing will never happen with Commercial / For Profit glasses.
- 6 days
They better get ready on finding these idiots because now they got people who remove the LED lights.
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish7 days
I’d like to know how well they handle being exposed to IR and/or UV LED flares.
Once that experiment has been performed, try a targeted laser turret.
Human eyes are also sensitive to high intensity IR and UV light so you will also blind a human wearing them. Depending on the wavelength, permanently.
- Godric@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
I’m already in favor of using high-powered lasers, you don’t have to keep convincing me
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish7 days
I meant to include ‘strobe’ in the definition. A low duty cycle would cut down on the biological impact, and rapid, random cycling would help blind the sensors as they try to compensate.
- 7 days
Probably a good place to ask, how many of my fellow lemmings are in vegas next week for the conferences??
- 8 days
Honestly, they should not ban them, and then just low-key encourage enterprising attendees to pwn the devices and any attached accounts. That would be delightful.
- username123@sh.itjust.worksEnglish8 days
Just saying there’s not a guarantee all versions will be crackable, the cost of having to deal with a bunch of those at the convention in perpetuity doesn’t seem worth the reward of dunking on a minority of them.
- athatet@lemmy.zipEnglish7 days
That makes sense. I thought you were commenting on the usage of the word ‘pwn’
- 6 days
I took it to mean that DEFCON is a different place in modern times, which is consistent with what I hear.
- theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
Defcon is not the place I’d want to wear something like that and make myself a target. Of course, I’d be embarrassed to wear them anywhere, but afraid at Defcon.
- Havatra@lemmy.zipEnglish8 days
Random files appearing in the downloads folder on my phone has only happened once
¯\(ツ)/¯- zaphod@sopuli.xyzEnglish8 days
Let me guess, it was an iPhone? Someone just used AirDrop and you might’ve allowed everyone sending you files.
- Havatra@lemmy.zipEnglish8 days
It was Android :-) WiFi, NFC and BT turned off. It was Android 12 I believe, back in 2022.
- Havatra@lemmy.zipEnglish7 days
Nope - aware of juice jackers, so I only used my own cables and adapters (even have a USB condom).
I’m generally pretty security aware, but my only theory of how it landed there is some cellular exploit. Whether it was a crafted MMS, a custom cell site, or something else I don’t know.
I did use mobile data for some ubers, but that was off-site.
- pulverizedcoccyx@lemmy.caEnglish8 days
That’s actually a bit frightening and the feeling of being violated would linger for a while.
- 8 days
My goodness, your username!?!
I think you might already know…
- blazeknave@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
I was afraid walking into the room with the wall of sheeple just bc I was wearing a button down in spite of being the sole sponsor of the hackathon. I (as instructed) left my watch, phone, laptop etc at hotel and only brought locked down Chromebook and lived in sweaty terror every keystroke. All while they were stoked and loving the sponsor not just buying a logo, and sent me back with like 500 bucks in swag easily to share back home at the office. Still… Terror.
- theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
Fortunately most of the attendees are genuinely good folks, so generally what really happens is just that some data gets scraped and everybody has a bit of a laugh at one of the talks.
I know worse happens, I just think it’s worth mentioning it is actually a group of mostly awesome people.
- gajahmada@awful.systemsEnglish6 days
I know worse happens
Such as? I don’t think I’ll ever attend this kind of event due to geographic and financial constraint.
And I can imagine just bringin my EOL android 12 and using it as is even only cellular is a pretty reckless, but if I just bring clean phone for emergency purpose it should be fine right?
- theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish6 days
I’m not saying that wrt phones only. But credit cards get skimmed and various other atm pranks. Loads of infrastructure takedowns. Zero days released into the wild with viruses attached. All sorts of shenanigans.
- ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
All hidden cameras should be illegal, I don’t care about your “hands free convenience”
This is like anti pervert laws 101
- 8 days
Yep. If you want to record everything going on from your POV, strap a GoPro to your head and see if people’s moods change about it. If they clearly don’t want that, they don’t want the “convenient” hidden cameras either. Simple as that.
They don’t want people knowing they are being recorded.
A gopro or a phone held up is basically an indicator of recording happening, which people can choose to avoid if they want to.
But pervert glasses don’t hold up that signal, and the pathetic attempt to make a signal (the LED) is easily covered or otherwise bypassed so you can creep on people without them ever knowing.
conference organizers said they have imposed a ban on “Meta-style glasses with recording capabilities.”
Dammit. I was hoping they explicitly called them “pervert glasses” like the headline suggested.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish7 days
especially when its being promoted by a pervert robot, known as ZUckerborg.
- 7 days
A Borg assimilation would be a personality upgrade for that creature.
- 8 days
Like, I guess I don’t understand why these damn things have a camera in the first place. At most they should be roughly equivalent to a smart watch - a display and some controls. Maybe bone-conducting headphones or something for audio. It’d be neat to have navigation prompts in glasses, for instance. Buy why a fucking camera?!
- grue@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
Were it not for the fact that it’s the fucking privacy-invading big tech companies doing it, I would admit that there are good use-cases for the camera:
- Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you’re talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I’m not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.
- Scanning, OCR-ing and making searchable any papers you’re looking at (hooking to your selfhosted Paperless-NGX).
- Displaying augmented-reality translations of street signs (which is one of the few reasonable things Google Glass actually did).
- MrMcGasion@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
I’ve heard they can be also quite useful for blind/vision-impaired users to describe surroundings and read signs, etc.
- Bgugi@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
It’s huge for this. Aiming and trying to frame the camera for a phone app sucks. Pointing your head is a lot more natural.
The "medical device " solutions are bulky, exceedingly expensive, and lack creature comforts like Bluetooth audio from your phone.
Yep. That’s the sort of thing that interested me as a visually impaired guy (I see about 20 percent with my contacts). It’s a shame I can’t really buy and use them for that since I’d likely get physically assaulted for using them for benign purposes.
- Bgugi@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
Check your local laws, but you can probably buy and carry a white cane so long as you aren’t trying to scam the legal benefits of it.
Everyone can, there’s no legal issues with it. Same as wheelchairs. You can buy and use one if you like. Of course, people will be weirded out if you do it, but there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it.
That said, I’ve never needed a cane even though I’ve been trained to use a ‘recognition cane’ to cross the street (I went to a school for the visually impaired, where they teach everyone how to do that).
- Bgugi@lemmy.worldEnglish5 days
Didn’t want to state a blanket “can” - these types of laws vary in a lot of places.
- steelplatedmech@piefed.caEnglish7 days
Even then I could see people not wanting picture, video, or audio recorded of them even if it is just kept locally for private use. And that’s the problem of these glasses with trying to be discrete so people who would have avoided you or asked you to stop recording before having a conversation are left unaware.
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
They’d be helpful when interacting with police. Heck, I could see them being useful when interacting with anyone in a hostile situation. What people will say when they don’t think they’re being recorded and what they will say when they know they are can be vastly different, and the people that will speak and act differently are the very ones you want to record. I’ve had occasions in the past where these would have been very useful, though it turned out recorded audio was sufficent.
Unfortunately the tech is ripe for abuse and I understand the mistrust they cause. Too many crappy people, and too many crappy tech companies that will abuse the video themselves even if the person wearing them only used them with good intentions.
- 4am@lemmy.zipEnglish8 days
Even though I agree with recording police, the fact that your first thought went straight to “hidden camera for the purpose of recording without consent” makes this a nonstarter to begin with.
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
Most states it’s legal to record audio without consent if you’re a party to the conversation, and it’s legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.
For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I’d not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I’d have likely not beat the charges. So yeah… I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.
- steelplatedmech@piefed.caEnglish7 days
This is similar to the type of arguments made by those wanting increased surveillance with stuff like flock camera and ID online verification expansion. Pointing to the bad things in the world it helps prevent or track down that happens.
And pointing to the law to keep pushing what they are allowed to record and track.
Privacy and security has been a balancing act. And even examples of bad thing that happens I’m sure you can relate is the very common attempt at emotional appeal used by them.
Not denying your use case, but when it comes to surveillance they all seem to use the argument of safety.
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
A person being able to record what they see and hear is different than a robot that records everything. I strongly disapprove of flock and online ID verification. Those aren’t related to a person being able to make a personal record.
- steelplatedmech@piefed.caEnglish7 days
I’m sure that’s the argument Meta is making for their glasses.
People aren’t any better, since people are more likely to be recording specifically for the purposes of resharing and we do live in a social media age.
And these devices as they gain popularity would be relaying information back to the companies anyways, so make the claims of it being local or private not matter when that wouldn’t be the average wearable discrete tech that would gain mainstream popularity.
- Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish7 days
They weren’t talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I’d argue there’s implied consent as they’re public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they’re working for the owner class, but they’re paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I’d say that’s fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.
- ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
38 states believe if you’re a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn’t be allowed to protect yourself.
But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won’t suggest there aren’t reasons that some states are like that but I’m sure glad I didn’t live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.
- Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish7 days
Legality ≠ morality. 38 states believe you shouldn’t be prosecuted for the act. That is not a statement in what you should or should not do. I agree mostly with not making it illegal because, like I said, there are exceptions that make it something you should do. The law does not handle things like that well.
This isn’t to say someone shouldn’t punch you in the face if you’re filming them doing something they believed to be private. Are you legally allowed to? Sure. Should society allow it, in all cases all the time? Fuck no, and there should be consequences for it.
- NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.netEnglish7 days
Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you’re talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I’m not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.
I would rather the person shattered a glass fountain pen in my urethra than scanned my face because they forgot my name.
- realitista@lemmus.orgEnglish8 days
Yes this is the exact thing I’m interested in. Camera is definitely not something needed here. There are some like this on the market like the MemoMind. I’m waiting for one with progressive lens support like the Even Realities G2 but with audio added.
- h3ll3rsh4nks@ani.socialEnglish8 days
Part of me understands having a camera for AR lookups and such, and in my line of work a hands free camera would be amazing especially if I could pull the image back up on the glasses and zoom in on serial numbers etc, but I don’t trust Meta with being on my phone let alone having a live video feed from my eye line at all times.
- 8 days
Most Meta glasses don’t even HAVE a display. The camera is the only thing they do.
- Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish8 days
I would LOVE to have a nice pair of camera glasses. I love my dashcam, I’m so excited when something crazy happens (that doesn’t involve me) so I can save the video to show to my partner. I’d loooove that while just walking around.
No fucking chance I want that device to have Internet access, absolutely not. I specifically got the best dashcam I could that has NO Bluetooth or WiFi capabilities, local storage only.
I fully see the value in having a hands-free camera while I’m walking around, exploring, people-watching, etc. but anything that I don’t have the control of where the data all goes is incredibly not bueno.
- ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
I’m walking around, exploring, people-watching, etc. but anything that I don’t have the control of where the data all goes
I think the ethical problem is that the people you’re watching don’t have any control over where that video go tbh
- Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish8 days
Nobody has any control over where dashcam videos go, or where videos we take with our phones go… but those are okay. If I put my phone on an armband or a shirt pocket and record, isn’t that basically the same thing as having camera glasses?
I’m fine with someone recording with a camera in public, that’s all cool. But I don’t wanna be anywhere near anything connected to Facebook. I don’t want my pictures there, or my words, or anything to do with me.
- ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
It hits a little differently if you’ve ever been a victim of sexual harassment.
If your put a camera anywhere on your person that surreptitiously records people without their consent, I think anyone has the right to presume you’re a pervert, and act accordingly
- Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish8 days
You’re not gonna believe this lul
I just feel differently. Another poster mentioned bathrooms though and that’s a very good point. If I ever did have a camera that recorded stuff I see locally like a dashcam, I’d take it off, turn it off, and put it in my bag before I entered a private-public space like that.
- 8 days
Yeah, but you can’t enter with your car in a public restroom.
- Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish8 days
That’s a very good point—if I went into a public restroom, I’d take camera glasses off and put them in my bag for sure.
I guess it depends on where you are from. Data protection is taken relatively seriously where I come from (Germany), and dashcams are heavily regulated (in theory). Dashcam footage must be non-continuous and triggered by specific events, e.g., a collision. It is not meant to be saved or archived without a valid reason.
- steelplatedmech@piefed.caEnglish7 days
I personally don’t want to be recorded. I dont have a choice in the matter with it not being illegal, but I’ll avoid people who are obviously recording when possible.
Can’t do much about people going out of their way to be discrete, but if they are trying to be discrete those people tend to be people who are aware others don’t like it but don’t care what others think.
But I don’t wanna be anywhere near anything connected to Facebook.
Same. That’s pretty much why. It doesn’t matter if it isn’t a Facebook device. People might be recording to upload to facebook related socials or end up reposting on facebook media socials. Its an uploading sharing social media society we live in.
I’m not going to go out of my way to stop someone recording. That just makes you stand out more, and end up content. So even if something is legal and people aren’t doing anything it doesn’t mean they are willingly consenting. They’ve accepted that’s how it is.
In OPs example they don’t have that already because whipping out a phone is very easy to do (just not before the situation happened).
I like how these only became a problem because Meta made them which meant a bunch of morons bought it.
Hidden and pinhole cameras have been a commercially available thing for decades, even on glasses.
Hell they even made one as a kids toy you could buy.
- kevinsky@feddit.nlEnglish7 days
Hidden and pinhole cameras have been a commercially available thing for decades, even on glasses.
And more or less equally problematic?
- Flatfire@lemmy.caEnglish7 days
Well, morons bought it and the device is directly connected to a data harvesting company. I think that has more to do with it. One lone weirdo with a hidden camera and a home server isn’t the same kind of boogeyman
- raze2012@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
only became a problem because Meta made them
Anyone who remember “glassholes” knows this isn’t new. Wearing a camera on your literal eyes is still a step too far in this otherwise compromised world.
But yes, I think the big issue here, as others pointed out, has to do with the nature of the company producing them. That’d be especially important for a place like DEFCON, which is all about securing your data.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish7 days
everyone remember google glasses: spying, watching porn was all anyone could think someone is wearing it.
- shaman1093@lemmy.mlEnglish7 days
Interesting enough, while a big flop in the retail market (due to bad reception like you mentioned) I believe they ended up being quite successful in the automated logistics space.
- Flaxseed@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
And gynecologists. I remember seeing a news segment when they were discontinued that interviewed one, and she was bummed out.
- Psythik@lemmy.worldEnglish7 days
It’s not the cameras that are the problem, however, it’s the companies behind them that I take issue with. It’s one thing to be spied on by a camera, it’s another thing when data collected from that camera feed is then sold to anyone who is buying. That’s what I have a problem with. The cameras themselves aren’t the issue.
- [object Object]@lemmy.caEnglish8 days
- Go to Def Con
- Wear internet connected camera in bathroom and while typing all passwords
- ???
- Profit
- PattyMcB@lemmy.worldEnglish8 days
- Have said glasses hacked and the video stream played on large screens around the venue for the duration of the convention
- NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.netEnglish7 days
The even-worse-case scenario of "went to a conference and forgot I had my mic still on when I went to the bathroom, so everyone heard me calling the urinal a “thirsty boy”. "
- minorkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish8 days
So have shirt that says, “If you can read this, you may be recorded for your safety and for quality assurance purposes.” That’s what corporations do, right? Should solve the concerns?
- partofthevoice@lemmy.zipEnglish8 days
That would make an awesome shirt, actually. Reminds me of the protest shirts on policy affecting RSA encryption, “this shirt is a WMD” or something to that effect…
Nah. See the specific phrasing allows for you to record them and them to record you in two party consent states
San Diego ComiCon banned them, and Dragoncon is going to ban them.
