The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public
https://tech.yahoo.com/wearables/articles/backlash-strong-people-pervert-glasses-165000816.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.zipSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.ziphttps://tech.yahoo.com/wearables/articles/backlash-strong-people-pervert-glasses-165000816.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.zip
417 replies
good
I hate those "pervert glasses" so much. You don't need to have a camera in your glasses. Just wear normal glasses.
imagine being someone who just escaped a very violent situation and they need to stay safe and off the internet
then this shit happens
The real issue in my mind is privacy and autonomy. I want to be able to walk around without the expectation that I'm recorded. I'm male and don't have the same the impact from the creep-factor, and absolutely get it, but the implications are larger than dudes looking at women.
Big difference from a "I am in public and can be recorded" to a "I am in public and I should expect to be recorded". Another big step to "that recording is on a mega-corp server and can be viewed, reviewed, used as training data, cross-referenced, and otherwise processed without my consent because the person recording me consented; I really think this is the the crux, as I can have a tacit approval to be recorded by walking to a store, but I haven't given any approval for my likeness, my position, my emotions, etc to be recorded by walking down a street. A TV show using unsuspecting public will get people to sign waivers granting limited rights to their footage afterwards, or blur faces -- or did -- before retaining and publishing.
I walk into a grocery store and I can expect that they have a CCTV (note the CLOSED CIRCUIT part) system to be able to review what happened in the case of a robbery or whatever. The tech of my childhood meant that the store had a stack of VHS tapes, or maybe DVD/HD/SSD that rotated and could hold (lets way exaggerate) a decade of footage. A decade after I left the store, there was no record I was there -- maybe a receipt if I used a card, but I don't actually know the PCI retention requirements. With cheap storage and 3rd-party cloud-hosted camera systems, the business no longer owns the records of my presence, and has only a data retention 'agreement' with the provider. I didn't agree to my footage being used for any purpose other than the one implicit for safety/loss-prevention by visiting the store. Any use beyond that should be unreasonable search and seizure, but it's not being done by the government, so isn't illegal or something I could sue over.
Very similar situation to Flock/generic-ALPR-esq cameras. The trend used to be that unless you were somehow a person-of-note that you had effective anonymity in public: It took resources to monitor an individual's movements, facial expressions, actions, etc. It no longer does, and so all this is effectively captured and stored in perpetuity. The real problem is that it's everywhere. Good luck finding a grocery store that doesn't have some cloud-provider surveillance. Good luck finding a gas station that doesn't. Good luck even driving to a specific store that isn't recording you constantly because you pass several cameras on the way and some are specifically designed to track your movements.
Bringing it home to the current topic of 'smart' glasses. I haven't consented to being recorded by random person walking down the street with Meta's camera on their face. Meta has no ethical rights to my "content", regardless of whether the owner of the glasses has agreed to give Meta a license to their video as part of setting up the glasses. Ethical vs Legal, but we can keep pushing back.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this shit is pervasive and won't stop until we force it.
It's not just that people are "perverts", it's that they're wearing a camera on their face constantly filming people who have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Even in public most countries would protect that expectation in a lot of cases.
So unless somebody wants to be violently assaulted and their glasses ripped and smashed off their face, then it might be best to not buy them at all, or only wear them in private.
Being accidentally recorded in the background of someone's photo or video is one thing, and it happens all the time, that is fine
But we all know it doesn't end there.
These glasses allow secret recording
Of your children at the playground
Of your wife and children at the beach
Of your wife and you at a nude beach
Then all the videos will be picked up by Facebook and fed into their AI. your kids, your family, you, will forcibly be used for AI proposes, you will also be identified, your locations will be stored with it and sold to the highest bidder. Your facial expressions will be determined, what you all were wearing, what you were doing. All of it will be not used but abused to hell and back
If I see such glasses making a recording of me and or my family that will be the end of those glasses
This is the glasshole stigma all over again
Good. Good. Let your hate become your strength
Good
"There are a lot of times where it's not appropriate to wear cameras on your face". When is it ever appropriate? Try walking around pointing your cellphone at people's faces all the time and see what happens.
Reminds me of Google glass or whatever it was called. It's not that people aren't ready, it's just a bad idea
"Glassholes"
I remember.
I used to run a comedy show during this era.
We straight up kicked those fucks out
I used to support the Glass team at Google. I felt so bad watching them destroy the team after Sergey influence plummeted after he was caught cheating. They just slowly moved everyone to different projects. They had super stars on that team.
I love that big tech was so arrogant they just plum forgot or choose to ignore why those died then.
And then above it they still chose the one thing everyone was mad about, a camera. All they had to do was not put a camera in there but they couldn't resist.
I think the product that speaks the most about the camera was the Snapchat Spectacles. Snapchat did everything they could to position it strictly as a fun, party-oriented camera that didn't try to hide what it was but leaned into the fun ways to use it.
And they still died out after the initial hype. Which I think is most telling because, like, here's this product with the most positive take you could possibly have on "glasses with cameras" and people still didn't want it. So wth makes Google think the creepy no-fun version will catch on?
This is meta not google, but same difference
Not everything.
They should have gone full OG instagram and make the glasses look like a pair of old school Polaroid cameras that even spit out the picture.
Eh, even the guy in the video mentions the distribution being a factor in the hype dying down. I think with a bigger distribution they could’ve worked better, the main issue with the Meta ones is that they’re basically made to record stuff inconspicuously and that’s freaking creepy.
Because it's the gateway to augmented reality and conditions the public even further I to the assumption they are constantly being surveilled.
90% of the point of these things is having AI analyze what you are looking at (and also monetize it with ads etc).
creeps are the #1 target demo for these devices
I honestly don't think so. I think they're up there, but tech "enthusiasts" (read, tech bros and people who think random gadgets are cool) probably are. They're happy to waste their money and give money to meta. Creeps are definitely number 2 or 3 though.
Yeah, I'd consider myself a bit of a tech enthusiast but I'd never buy a closed source product like smart glasses. I have looked a little into Mentra glasses as it's open source and it looks like you might be able to stand up your own backend.
It would in no way be an everyday wear for me though. I'd probably only ever wear it for outdoor activities. But honestly a GoPro or equivalent with a harness would probably be a better option for that.
creeps, and creep supporters, ok. anyone giving meta money is at least creep adjacent if not a creep themselves.
They used to say that porn was the real driver of technology for home video.
The porn industry makes like three times as much money as Hollywood. They were right.
it was one of the things that decided vhs vs betamax.
betamax (sony) wanted licensing fees from everyone and VHS (everyone else) wanted to win.
these are the same people who would unironically make the torment nexus, firmly believing that they will do it right and it will be good this time
Needed the data, if you're phone is always in your pocket then it's really hard to get a live video. Better to model their AI to simulate human interactions
Not for the first time. Metaverse failed for all the same reasons that Second Life did: it's a solution to a problem that most people don't have. Except Second Life - which still exists and supposedly is far more active than during its heyday - only cost the merest fraction compared to the Metaverse.
As for the Spybans, there were a couple of short films released around 2010 that predicted the privacy issues linking AR with realtime social networking would bring. So it's not a new idea. Unfortunately, both films were taken down soon after because they were deemed too disturbing.
And yet, here we are.
....fair
The trouble is, half the cool shit that AR can do requires some sort of optical sensor to pull off. If you want it to be anything more than just a smaller cell phone closer to your eye.
And if course they were compelled to hook it up to their mass surveillance network...
It wasn't dumb and they didn't forget. The frog has simply been sufficiently boiled. Meta sold millions of these. The people complaining are a very small minority.
It's annoying how tech bros phrase products and services so that you don't get to say no, it's something like not right now or people aren't ready. Lots of stuff from pop ups for OneDrive in windows to press releases about Google glass. It's fascist.
No your product or service is unwanted and no means no.
They are not that keen on obtaining consent. In every regard.
They spike terms of service with no ethical opt out and call it a day.
🙄
This is so infuriating.
True AR? Absolutely not a bad idea, are you kidding me?
Take out the ability to record stealthily and they’re a great idea. Overlay art on walls, place monitors in your real space, do work on a laptop with the screen off, put directions in the actual world so you’re not looking at a screen, and that just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Don’t let the tech conglomerates ruin an amazing tech concept.
These do exist and they are pretty amazing apparently.
Their form factor still isn’t great from what I understand. The tech isn’t properly caught up to the idea. But once it has, it’s going to be a paradigm shift in the way we interact with the digital world similar to the smart phone.
Vision Pro is as close as we have come, and it is still overpriced, ugly, uncomfortable, and incapable of most basic AR tasks. It can’t identify and track objects in real time, which is the lowest bar for functional AR.
Someone shouted “GLASSHOLES!” and died.
For consumers yes, but an AR glasses for technical workers that (for example with an electrician), you could mark and highlight cables in AR that you are working on/ignoring or being able to auto search and send IC identifications on reverse engineering a PCB would be genuinely useful.
lol and that was 5mp, genuinely low res compared to the pervert specs
By "not ready," they mean, "not complacent enough." Fuck the tech bros.
Bad enough that Tesla's are mobile surveillance nodes. Definitely don't need cameras going indoors everywhere too.
The problem with Google Glass is that had a form factor which limited what could be done. On top of that it was a beta product and you technically needed to be a developer with I think C language knowledge to be allowed to purchase one. Even if you could buy it the device was like $1,000+ because it wasn’t a consumer ready model.
Yeah the idea was so bad Apple stopped developing future Apple Vision products and pivoted to release an affordable alternative.
This thread seems to have a whole lot of hopefulness and not much actual data they are going off. If Apple actually launches a good usable pair for a decent price, it will all become "I wish manufacturers never made these" and people yelling pervert at someone on the street will result in them getting sued/arrested/baker acted.
It's been 12 years since glass went public, I have to imagine someone figured out decent ways to work the upgrades in hardware since into them.
2013 version: 45nm Chip made by Texas instruments.
Any chip from 2026/7 will run laps around it
apples approach seems to be wait and see.
that make sense, why i only saw one person in public once using, so they had to be a tech dev. in any cause it was still considered as a perv glass too, because you could somehow watch porn on it.
Remember that documentary about them? https://youtu.be/6PY8C1KmNwM
i remember that, the first news of it was it was being used to WATCH PORN. and then i saw a person in a subway once with it, it looks silly and kinda perverty.
Look, I actually want smart glasses, but there is absolutely no reason for there to be cameras in them.
Just give me a HUD so I can follow transit directions or something. I'm not trying to take creepshots.
What really frustrates me is that governments and big business have normalized surveillance everywhere, and now big business is basically selling wearable spyware, and this is all quite egregious.
But, one of the biggest ways to combat this is with "sousveillance", or the surveillance of oneself. This has proven to be quite effective for motorists who own dashcams, and could be useful other places as well. But AI-peddling billionaires have ruined the reputation of that kind of thing entirely to the point where even open source variants of this tech will be rejected by the public.
So businesses, the government, and the police have the right, and in many cases the obligation to record your every move in public, but you aren't allowed to record your own surroundings in return.
Others have said it better than I ever could, but in my own words, even IF every person who bought these was the epitome of the highest moral and ethical standards, I would still be uncomfortable due to the way-too-high possibility of them being 'hacked' remotely which would still have the potential to destroy lives
Cities should be just as afraid of deploying Flock cameras.
Did you know tubing cutters are cheap, portable, and silent in their operation?
Sign up for more tube cutting facts!
On YouTube?
The cameras have copper in them too. Probably.
Attaching to this to remind everyone that these cameras have sensors to scrape rfid, nfc, tpms, Bluetooth, and wifi ssids as well. They're not 'license plate readers'. They're full suite surveillance systems that'll capture every ID passing by. Your list of remembered wifi connections in your phone is a trackable fingerprint, and unless you take steps, it's being broadcast every time you turn on wifi.
Your phone is not broadcasting a list of WiFi networks it wants to connect to. That's not how it works at all.
It is periodically (couple of times a second probably) checking the available SSIDs to see if there is one that matches a remembered network on it's list.
It would be horribly insecure to have a device broadcasting the name of a network that it would actively try to connect to.
Thats what i keep hearing. I bet they have cameras and maybe sim cards too. Along with a spiffy solar panel.
This gave me a good laugh, imagine putting the SIM card into a mobile router or something. Just use it like a data plan, no big deal.
I think someone did it but with a device thought for blocking your car
Sure, but this is an international thing, Flock is US only. And it's completely expected to see comments about something US specific written like it's a global thing (or that nothing outside the US exists) because that's fucking always the case.
The 'Murica brain, like yours, just can't comprehend that the vast majority of the world isn't the US.
Your comment says way more about you than you comprehend and your assumptions about all Americans are laughable. Having a bad day, are we? Maybe you should call your mum.
You should fly yourself and your asshole attitude back to Reddit, find the rest of your miserable flock and claim victory, that is if they don't ignore your sorry ass there too.
Unfortunately, this has a habit of becoming a self-reinforcing need for authoritarian policing.
"Flock camera destruction" becomes the rationale for more cameras and more cops and more draconian punishments. And this cycle continues so long as the public continues to send up corporate shills and industry hacks to fill the municipal offices.
Oh good to know. I guess we’ll just have to stick with the alternative. Do nothing and watch it happen anyway.
Or you could try to make ACTUAL change, instead of throwing temper tantrums like a child and encouraging others to get themselves in legal trouble that would affect the rest of their lives.
How many have you destroyed? Let me guess. Zero. Another internet tough guy who others to take the hit.
No, you have to go after the local politicians who keep approving these systems. Electorally of course, you psychos. Your local city council rep is going to feel much more pressure from an angry letter from a voter than your senator would.
Follow them around with cameras. They need to feel the dystopian pressure themselves
They will sue you for harassment. Keep in mind that when it's done to them, it's "different".
I heard they're chock full of copper
Elected officials are loaded with copper.
Or not, if push really comes to shove.
But you do have to recognize that you can't just break the fascade of the machine to get it to stop working.
Vote harder, libs!
Yes? The reason shit you don't like happens is because you refuse to a participate, you fucking dunce.
This is probably one of the few issues you could really get grass roots bipartisan support on these days. It would have to be marketed right though. Maybe something like "DEI cameras", or "6G posts".
Ignore the vote! If we don't vote, it delegitimizes the election and then the local government will be forced to ignore everyone that stayed home and still do the awful thing anyway because the winner is an open fascist.
Much better alternative!
Shame is a greatly underrated emotion.
Words to live by.
Sure, Jan.
Just a regular reminder that facebook has a massive child sex material trade problem, that they've actively done nothing to prevent, but they have called police on reporters reporting on it.
So Zuckerberg wanting his creepnology on every face, in every bathroom, hospital, etc, while he gets a copy of every video, is very much in character
I mean dude was meeting with Epstein so…
he wants to learn what make humans tic so he can mimic and control them.
Yeah having to let the battery die on a patient's prescription glasses that they needed to like. Not fall down while walking. Was not a fun couple of shifts.
Well, yeah. It starts with people sharing “just family photos,” and the monsters make it a cesspool.
So...
I inherited my grandmother's house. I'm a heterosexual bachelor, I don't give a shit about decoration, so the automotive tools and 3D printing detritus, house cat, and electronics shit from about waist down are mine, the artwork and curtains and shit at chest level and above are still my grandmother's.
Included in this is one of those "one large frame full of a bunch of individual family photos" things that ceased to be manufactured during Dubya's first term. In it is a picture of a bunch of relatives of mine hanging out in a back yard, the last of whom died last month, a black and white photo of my father when he was 7, a dageurrotype of my great grandfather's first wedding...
And a polaroid of me, age 2, scrote ass naked, riding Bradley. Who the fuck is Bradley. So, while I was a fetus, my family went to a state fair. My father decided to stop at the carnie section to play ring toss. My hilariously pregnant 5 foot tall mother wanted to play too. So Dad gave her a fistful of rings. And she got one. As my dad tells it, the second my mama cheered, that carnie took the rest of those rings from my father, chucked them in a different, empty basket presumably to inspect them to make sure they are in fact smaller than the neck of the bottles, and begrudgingly told her to pick out one of the hilariously huge stuffed animals on display, and she picked a life-size tiger. On the way back out of the fair, my family walked past a National guard exhibit, including several tanks and armored vehicles. My grandmother, the idiot that decided to carpet my bathroom, noticed the sign next to a particularly large tank-like machine said "Bradley Fighting Vehicle" and she said "Oh how cute, they named it." And lo the 6 foot long polyester tiger was named Bradley.
Three years later, I got out of a bath tub, and before some toddler sized tighty-whiteys happened I mounted that very tiger like a horse, which amused my father enough to go get the family Instamatic. My grandmother ended up owning the resulting photograph, time makes corpses of us all, I inherited my grandmother's estate to include a 37 year old picture of my own dick.
So when I build my drinks cabinet intended to go on that wall, and pull down that photo collage and give it to my parents, one of whom was the photographer of several of those family photos, am I going to be arrested for trafficking child porn?
Probably, in Trump's America.
You write well. Also, is it illegal to possess a naked picture of oneself as a child?
I guess it's about the risk of someone viewing it sexually.
No, naked photographs of children are not illegal in that context
Heard of a guy with pictures of his kid in the bath. Police investigated and once they realised it was his own kid, no further action.
Might vary based on where you live of course.
The key to a good stand-up routine? Imagery. And crowd-work.
I'll admit at first I thought Bradley was gonna be the carnie. Relieved.
If they didn't have a camera, I think they'd stand a better chance. I think they should just be a screen that links to your phone and peripherals. Honestly the little wrist typing input seem pretty cool to me. If I could type with them onto like a low-res glass ink display it'd be fine. I'm not gonna wear a camera on my face nor am I going to wear some bulky nonsense, just no chance. If they could look like slim glasses and take wireless power from something on my neck or headphones, I think they'd be a viable peripheral input product.
Zuckerberg wants wants to put the compute on your face, for some reason. Even turning the phone into a brick you interact with through the peripherals seems unrealistic since the glasses would need to have multicolor display without being bulky. Dude needs some people with basic sense to tell him no and guide him to something more realistic.
If they didn't have a camera they'd be pointless, there's really no reason to have a screen on your face if it wasn't to help AR the world.
Which is why it's going to need an extremely valid reason to use them aside from being a creeper.
I’d use them to subtitle everything because i’m deaf
Yeah I've long said these could be a useful accessibility tool for those of us who can't hear
Not true. I've had my eye on a pair for awhile that has no camera, only microphone, but has a HUD. Having navigation, an irl minimap, without having to keep your phone out is nice and has some actual positive safety implications. Also, this might mean less to Americans, but as someone living in Europe, having in line translation is really, really cool. Could almost sell it on that alone. I've heard some deaf folks are also using it to help understand people by augmenting their lip reading (which usually doesn't get all of the information across by itself) with summaries that the mic picked up.
I've only held off because the pair I was looking at seem like it isn't quite there yet in reliability, but there are definitely some pretty big use cases I can think of. I would 100% get some of these without a camera.
Wondering how we're doing on echolocation or if sensors that are less invasive but still useful might be tolerated in public. The device might identify objects generically... Maybe there's some middleground between useful and perverted.
Look around. People have a screen on their face 24/7. Currently they need their hand to hold it there.
Maybe you mean there is no need for a camera on your face. That I agree with.
Lidar, rather than a camera. Allows it to create a 3d model of what’s in front of it without being able to take pictures itself
So there are certainly some valid use cases. They could be useful for surgeries, engineering design work, surveying, etc. None of these have you wearing them all the time or in social areas through. It's a niche product they need to focus on those markets and stop trying to force mass adoption. It's the same as AI.
Get away with watching YT at work? Reclaim hours of my life, that's my end goal.
There’s a YouTube guy that made his own and uses it as a teleprompter during his videos. Certainly a niche use case.
Not these devices but Zach Freedman of Voidstar Labs uses a single eye display as a teleprompter.
funny, I see it as a privacy nightmare and a tool for the worst kind of creep.
good for you.
There is no market for such niches.
I live next to a beach. I don't think I will ever visit the popular areas again if these things become common.
Fortunately you only need to walk 60 seconds east/west of a car park to get away from most people and the coastline goes on for miles.
Maybe without cameras? I can see the use at work.
They will, unfortunately. I hate these things but I know that as soon as influencers make them cool, the shame will go away.
I really want to be wrong about this.
How do we feel about 'pedofocals'?
Creeps love an always-on camera that you can wear on your face so that it's not obvious that you're filming?
Who could've seen that coming
I’m never buying Ray Bans again. I don’t want to be associated, fuck Ray Bans for taking that cash.
I wonder if https://www.reflectacles.com/ will work against pervert glasses in addition to security cameras. Seems like a good time to find out.
There is an Android app that looks for the Bluetooth signatures of these glasses and alerts if they are nearby. Hopefully something exists on iOS devices as well.
Edit: The app is called Nearby Glasses and it is available on iOS and Android.
iOS App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nearby-glasses-original/id6761056896
what's that app called??
Nearby Glasses
(Play store, also on F-Droid via the IzzyOnDroid repo)
thank you so much!!
Pervalert?
It's a module within Hotdog/Not Hotdog.
PERVASIVE,
Oohh need the name of that if you've got it handy.
It's called Nearby Glasses on both IOS and Android.
Good. Anyone caught wearing those in public should have them knocked the fuck off their faces...
I dont think this is deserving of violence, shouting "YO THIS PERVERT IS CREATING PORN OF ME ON HIS GLASSES" and making a big scene of it should be fun
And then the violence.
No the reason they are too scared to wear them is because of the threats of violence.
No threat. Promise.
"Wasn't he looking at your kids earlier?" to the biggest dad you find around.
Just kidding: be responsible! Punch the creep yourself!
Should revive the old term "glasshole"
I was at an event and the host was wearing them
In the context of “his job is a promoter and you’re at an event he’s promoting, and he’s not hiding that he’s recording” I was kind of okay with it.
But normally you’d have some side conversations with the guy and I felt really awkward with him wearing the glasses.
I felt their presence made the event worse. A video guy would have been fine by contrast, because there’s judgement and editorial reatraint.
Nope, I would have walked out. There are precious few pictures of me in this world (and the ones that exist are mostly celluloid) and my plan is to keep it that way as much as possible...
You might like my spouse
We were at a dinner event and they hired a drone operator to film it. So we’re sitting there, the musician is going on stage, and you hear brrrrrrrrrrrrr zrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the whole fucking time as this drove flies around you. We had an edge seat next on a patio so we’re the front row for the drone…
She spent the entire evening flipping off that drone so the footage wouldn’t be usable.
They didn’t ask for consent or a waiver or notify you they were doing that. We had tickets to multiple nights (bought months in advance) and they did this at all of them. We actually thought it was some annoying kid trying to be a brat until I saw the drone guy talking to the staff at the end of the night.
Super obnoxious.
There are some legitimate use cases. I mean as a hard of hearing person I’d love to be able to live caption my daily life (the tech isn’t quite there yet but it’s close). We should be pressuring governments to require visual indicators that they’re recording instead of policing individual users.
Display glasses do that without the camera... You don't need a camera to transcribe voice to text...
But I get it...there can be...but in the end, Rule 34 applies and all technology will be used for sex.
Erm, ackshually, Rule 34 is “if it exists, there is porn of it”.
Which means somewhere, there’s pics OF sexy anthropomorphic meta glasses. Maybe not even anthropomorphic.
LOL, you sound like my son, he does that to me all the time..
You're probably right, but I said what I said. ;-)
I just don't understand why they even tried. Google already proved in 2013 that people think you're an asshole for wearing things like this, even having the term "glasshole" come about.
Good.
Edit; I would add that people using these glasses should get ostracised. Point and laugh at them.
Specifically identifying the “pervert glasses” as “pervert Meta Ray-bans” would kill these products even faster. Associating Ray-bans with perversion would surely be a deal breaker.
"Pedo glasses" has the least syllables. Doesn't have to be accurate just has to make people feel disgusted at themselves for wearing them.
Start posting "No Meta Sunglasses" signs around playgrounds, schools, and water parks.
Trench Coats and unmarked vans are already synonymous with sexual predators. We got this.
Can we not dilute how horrific pedophilia is with overuse in an unrelated situation?
Yeah, I don't want "pedo" to become as diluted as "rape" is now please.
not really, since Zuck has hanged out with epstein among others in a picture, and likely more than once.
The "Rape Bans"
Pedo Raybans has the same number of syllables
Oakley makes them now as well. Ray-ban and Oakley are owned by the same company.
All sunglasses are owned by Luxottica
All prescription glasses are owned by Luxottica. Remember when the DOJ broke up gouging monopolies?
close to it.
It would likely invite a lawsuit of some sort.
woulndt it be pretty obvious if someone is wearing those glasses, plus its not like the camera is hidden.
And they should be.
"A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product."
Ruined? They're using it for it's designed purpose...
Ahhhh, glassholes.
I'm stealing that.
It's from 2013, when Google released Google Glass, the first glasses containing a screen and camera. The backlash to that was exactly like the backlash today towards glasses with cameras. The techbros just hoped we had forgotten.
Or maybe they just hoped that we were more desensitized to constant surveillance.
That's men acting as they intended using a product as intended. There is no plot twist here.
I remember this media cycle from the GoogleGlass era. And while the initial reporting was "People are viciously attacking anyone seen wearing them!", the business post-mortem was more that nobody was buying them to begin with.
These glasses are oversized, heavy, ugly, and pretty much useless for anyone who isn't a pervert. The sticker price for this largely pointless gadget can go north of $800 retail. That's a high-end PC or fully loaded PS5 for a small camera that sits on your face and some lenses that give you a Virtual Boy tier of AR overlay.
Who has time for this shit? There's no use-case.
Excuse me but whens the last time you priced a “high end pc”? You’re living in the past…
👉👈 Maybe five years ago. Even then, I'll admit "high end" is generous.
$800 is still a ton of money for an ugly pair of glasses with a gimmick nobody has implemented.
A high end gpu is >$2000 nowadays 😅
I mean, I saw 32GB ram sticks going for $1k the other day.
But you can get a Ryzen 9 9950X for under $700. The chips going up into the four and five figures are for very high end video rendering and machine learning.
To be fair, you can get a $800 high end PC... but it would be used and 4 to 5 generations out of date.
$800 might buy you the concept of a high end PC.
I can think of several use-cases: subtitles for the hearing impaired, translation, AR overlays for technical work, etc. Not saying they're a good value, but it seems weird to say there's no use-case.
And I genuinely don't understand the pervert angle. What do they do for perverts that can't be done with much cheaper button/pen cameras, or even a phone in your breast pocket?
Like sure, there are problems with surveillance and ads and other nasty tech bro shit, that much is obvious. But I sincerely do not understand why they're being called pervert glasses. Am I missing something?
yup. they knew what they were doing when they made it possible to kill the notifcation light without killing the recording.
Good.
also it has the stigma of Zuckerberg using his companies as datamining, spying, right wing peddling platforms. his name was enough to derail anything that comes out of meta.
Excellent news
The life enshitificator got enshitified itself
Next up: campaigns to normalize privacy violations IRL too, because that's separate from digital.
Also, please Flock and Ring too.
Ah hell. My only pair of sunglasses is a 5 year old pair of raybans.
I'd better not get "pervert glasses" shouted at me.
It's probably because the fucking glasses were used by the worst people at first. They were used by dudebros and weirdos who wish to do harm towards others. That's why people called them Perv glasses. Which isn't surprisng given Zuckerberg's whole M.O.
I have a bad feeling that apple is going to release a pair of smart glasses and all of the social momentum of discouraging wearing these things will be lost overnight.
Apple has been flopping harder than Trump's dick lately.
Didn't they already do that?
They proposed an AR helmet with a screen displaying your face.
Way too creepy, even for Apple fans.
If that was the proposal, then maybe the end product would have looked like these ones.
It's nice to see no one learned anything from Google Glass. This is why we're fucked as a species...
Backlash not strong enough imo but good news is good news.
that's how a societly is supposed to work.
Now do billionaires, and we golden!
How tone deaf do you have to be to even buy them?
Pretty sure the only people buying these are literally tech reviewers and actual perverts.
Influencers too.
They already mentioned perverts
Apples launch got pushed back I believe, but if they launch next year I don't think people will be able to put them back in the bag unless they launch at way to high prices
Well, actually deaf people would have a real use of this device, with the glasses giving them realtime visual clues of surrounding noise and voices, may be even realtime transcriptions?
Smartglasses without a camera would be useful to them.
The glasses don't have HUDs/screens. There are no real time visual clues.
Then whats the point of them? Just a camera?
You can ask it questions.
What? I thought that was the whole point. Incredibly lame.
Of course they have a display, what the hell do you think would be the point of them otherwise? Theyre still fucking dumb, but they'd be even more dumb if they were JUST cameras. Those have also already existed for ages. I remember seeing 'spy camera glasses' on Chinese reseller sites like dealextreme way back in like 2012.
The base version, which was the only one available for a while, doesn't.
No these don't have a display. You've obviously never seen these. Mostly they're a built-in speaker in the arms of the glasses and they have a camera that can record but you have to play it back on like your phone or something.
They don't have a display.
They literally do. it's pretty simple to just google it instead of being absurdly incorrect and then doubling down.
Most models don't have any kind of display at all. The most recent model that isn't widely available anywhere yet has a tiny notification window.
The vast majority of glasses out in the wild that people are using today do not have displays.
That will change, but right now, if you see someone wearing these glasses, you can be close to certain it doesn't have a display.
The older models didn't. Only the newest one does.
I was curious and it seems like only the newest fancy models have the screen ability, it seems like most are just camera headphones with AI.
Dont know the breakdown of deaf people, but some people are also helped by all these ear/head sets that use reverberations on the bone.
The type of hearing loss would depict whether or not they can be used. (Basically if the internal ear still functions, reverb works, if outside and inside doesn't work, it won't help)
not really, deaf people can still use it for perverted reasons too, not everyone is a saint.
I was thinking about buying some for recording my kids' events like schools graduations, performances, etc. I just hate watching everything through my phone instead of them and thought this would give the best of both worlds. As it stands now I do a lot less recording so I don't "miss" it.
Now I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't.
OpenAI’s wearable hardware will be even better.
I dunno if it’s a pin or belt buckle or earpiece or what, but imagine such a thing with its camera always on, its microphone always recording and ready to talk back, plus whatever other sensors and data streams it has for “awareness.”
Even if they disable video recording on the thing, I think it will become taboo too.
If I'm forced around people (family, friends, coworkers) who would wear them my go to would always be "I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable discussing (whatever topic) while being recorded". I think that's the best way to reinforce each time that it's weird, there's a constant recording of everything said, and that the people around them think it's weird
My Mom already does this around smartphones.
Some family thinks it’s weird or paranoid. I think it’s smart.
It sends the message. It’s an effective, reasonable way to get it across.
It's been known for a long time that they listen in. "hopefully" it's only keywords and items like dishwasher.
I've been stressing to family that sentiment analysis is so easy and cheap now. They usually respond with "what's that"? To which I reply "Take the entire history chain of messages between you and everyone in your contacts. Then simply ask 'Is this conversation pro or against the current administration', or 'Are they pro or against ICE', or 'are they pro-life or pro-choice', or literally anything else. In <10 seconds every conversation you have is sorted and collated, and note that at no point did a human read the message, but now has enough information on the conversation to justify a warrant.
Sentiment analysis should terrify everyone with how easy it is to sort every communication. So I say it's not tin foil hat.
That has been snapping them into reality.
There are conversations my family and I have intentionally away from electronics/phones. Mostly I'm hoping to instill the habit in my kid.
Takes me back to the HAARP conspiracy days of taking out your SIM card and eating it raw
I mean, in theory we do. An AR display or earpiece with lots of sensors would be cool.
But these companies have all poisoned the well. No one trusts them nor users on their platforms anymore.
EDIT: In case we forgot, half the problem with the Meta glasses IS Instagram. They created a space where macho jerks can get super rich live-streaming being a jerk, so of course thats what they will use the glasses for.
Otherwise it could be a neat idea, but we are not in that universe.
This is exactly what I said about Windows Recall. It's not a bad idea per se, but it requires the user to trust a company which has repeatedly and publicly screwed over its customers; a thing which no sane person would do.
Google seems to be working on Pixel phones listening in on conversations, and more. Going forward one has to assume any conversation to a Pixel owner is not private. https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/google-pixel/leaked-google-pixel-audio-memory-poised-to-remember-what-youve-heard
"Ok Google" has been doing this for years, as well as "hey Siri".
We ripped all this shit out after my wife and I had a conversation about a very specific item, then we both got bombarded with ads for them the next day.
I saw the audio memory thing for music in the patch notes, made me glad I was immediately installing Graphene on this thing.
What about a Pixel owner who is also privacy aware and is running GrapheneOS? Seriously though, I wouldn't trust any device these days. My S25U sends just as much telemetry back as raw Pixel Android does, and Samsung locks you in hard.
We don’t need a wearable for more than a camera and microphone, and that’s only for people who are too lazy to take their phone out of their pocket.
I've heard demos on all of these. Bad connectivity, poor interfaces, prone to overheating, very limited use cases... All these gadgets fucking suck.
Your cellphone ALREADY DOES ALL THIS!
But because it's a portable touchscreen online TV, it's still got a few useful functions attached. None of these other widgets offer anything a cell phone can't do better and cheaper.
I flashed e/os to main and I love it! Automatic blocking of trackers. Clear notices when apps access hardware. Falsified GPS to a plausible location at the flip of a switch. It's still not perfect but it's a big step and very easy to install.
I think Graphene is similar?
I've just had so many random bullshit issues with syncing my phone while using a VPN. I'm very reluctant to go to a new OS entirely. Maybe I can dig out an old phone and experiment. But I haven't even set up a proper Arr suite yet. So I'm not in a rush to add another task to the queue.
Oh that's totally fair! Honestly it's been a really pleasant surprise? I thought I'd have to fight it but even the few Google apps I needed still worked without an issue. I've been gradually sunsetting them one by one and just removed the last one the other day.
I love Organic Maps for nav. The voice is a little clunky but everything is computed offline.
Did you want any help? Tech support is literally my job, lol. I've built an are stack + jellyfin, mailserver and home assistant before for what it's worth.
Mine supposedly doesn't. Never ever enabled Google assistant or whatever it is. I probably have some apps doing it stealthily while they're in use but at least they supposedly can't do it while the phone's in my pocket.
Smartphone cameras are obscured in your pocket though. And isn't typically always responsive like Alexa attached to your shirt.
I'm not saying you're wrong though. It's just lest obvious and doesn't have the opportunity to film all the time.
And so they should be.
Exactly what other use would someone have out in public for a pair of glasses that silently and stealthily record the world around them on a whim?
Google was literally bashed for exactly this same reason with the Glass. Its not that people dislike the idea of portable recordings, that's what we have action cams for - it's the desperate attempt to conceal a recording device into glasses.
The market is basically only vloggers and perverts, and the vloggers are perfectly content with wearing way less creepy action cams.
The only benefit I understand they offer is making life somewhat easier for the vision impaired.
No, recording glasses absolutely are awful to have in society, but there are potential good uses of the technology. None that outweigh the downsides, but good uses for it could exist.
For example when you see someone you met before it could pop up a bubble telling you their name, their relationship to you, when you saw them last, previous topics that you've discussed with them, etc. Or when you're following walking directions it could display a green line on the route you're supposed to follow. Or for people with disabilities it could do things like block out visual elements that could trigger a seizure. Etc.
But as i said earlier, all the potential upsides combined don't come close to outweighing all the very awful very real downsides. Just clarifying.
This legit sounds terrible. This sound like a world without meaningful social connections where people are cocooned into isolation by convenience technologies. You should just learn people's names. Even if it makes you a bit anxious because you are worried you will mess up details sometimes, it is better than that kind of loneliness.
"404, I haven't seen you in years!”
Translation is a great application. In. Foreign country, text is overlayed with the translation. Subtitles for people speaking.
I'd you're training you can see your regimen, heart rate, speed, exercises.
Blocking out advertisement would be fun.
But the thing should not be allowed to record anything. But even then some idiot is going to put the nudify app on the phone and we're back at creepy.
Agreed, and that's the thing. It's inherently an all or nothing technology, no rules or regulations could ever be trusted to allow the good uses but prevent the bad uses. So the only right option is to prevent the technology from being used at all
There are smart glasses without camera that can do translation. So there are some options.
The amusing thing is put a gopro on your bike helmet, dashcam in your car? No problem. Camera on your face? Oh hells no.
I feel weird even about wearing my sunglasses indoors. I do it only because I like bringing one pair out the door, it's very sunny out, and they're long-range prescriptions that help me read menus and signs.
Aside from the cameras, the obvious issue, as is with cops, is just constantly hiding your eyes for little reason.
Did they really think "yes, let's make Glasshole v2" and nobody gave it a second thought?
Being able to ruin a product presumes that it wasn't vile to begin with.
Fuck those glasses. But also, my brain can't let go of the question of "How would I feel if I saw a woman wearing these?". And honestly I'm not sure??? Like you could make an argument that at least they would deter creepy men?? Anyone got any thoughts on that?
good!
I legitimately struggle to imagine what else you'd use them for unless you were doing daily vlogging, in which case you'd be talking to yourself and it would be pretty obvious. But anyone just like riding the subway with these things is just creeping until proven otherwise.
I'd see them as a neat action cam that's more sincerely 1st person than a GoPro...if they didn't have Meta slop on board.
That's what I mean - there's definitely reasons the form factor makes sense. But anyone just walking around with it day to day is looking at T&A. Full stop.
Yeah, My phone has more AI than I want already. cameras don't need that what-so-ever
What I really want is to be able to record my son at a track meet. Only during his heats, I'd like to be able to look at him with my own eyes and record what i'm seeing with something like a 3x zoom. The camera could be an external, removable addon. when I don't need it, it's off.
Like a dashcam to prove you're innocent, but for your whole life, not just driving.
I'm really interested in the non-cam models. There's a set out there now that has a HUD with notifications, navigation, translation on the fly, notes for meetings, etc.
The recording audio surreptitiously could be... problematic, but I think somewhat less than video and the in-line translation is legitimately useful and cool feature.
I've also been saying for years that augmented reality games could have some real potential, especially for getting exercise while playing games... imagining like running through a field competing with other players collecting coins or a cycle path. Not sure some cool games is worth the tradeoff of having cameras everywhere though. I'd definitely support legislation that says a visible light needs to be on when recording anything.
There are tons of things that involve recording what you are doing that doesn't involve anyone else.
Recording myself taking electronics apart, doing woodworking, or a lot of hobby stuff from first person perspective in a convenient format like safety goggles instead of a camera strapped to the top of the head would be awesome!
Very convenient for recording what I am looking at while driving, not just front and back dash views. People working in dangerous situations having easy recording equipment, like during disaster recovery or administering medical care that would be better than clip on chest cams.
Private individuals going about their day in public? Not enough positives to outweigh the negatives for sure.
Zuckerberg should never ever ever get a moments peace
If only tech bros watched dystopian works about technology like Black Mirror that told us how dumb this concept really is. But hey at least they will learn from their own mistakes, right… right?
They watch Black Mirror and they see a world in which ordinary people have to obey the wishes of the rich and powerful or they suffer. And they like what they see.
They are watching shows like Black Mirror, but its for inspiration
Don't create the Torment Nexus
The moral of Don't Create the Torment Nexus is that you should create the torment nexus first so that you're in control of it!
Glassholes have returned
As they should be. If I recognized anyone wearing them I would yell 'pervert glasses on this guy' to everyone in the vicinity.
Good. That means it's working.
The real problem is yet to come.
Miniaturizing the components until they can be integrated into normal glasses frames. Then it'll be impossible to distinguish a normal spectacles wearer from a glasshole.
It's not far away, many fashion brands of frames are already chunky enough to do so.
Yeah, there's clearly demand, so the engineering challenge is making them difficult to detect. That's how the OEMs are going to view this
Good. Let's keep it that way.
ETA: I have a deep loathing of everything Zuck, mainly because he's amoral. I already have
distracteddistanced myself from people who use his platforms because all they seem to want is attention at all costs, usually through pushing what they think is true, without evidence, and posting other people's personal information and images without even asking, let alone consent.I saw a puff piece where they tried to promote these at a music festival as helping blind people see the world by having an LLM describe the environment around to them. They will even try disabled-washing to popularize these.
I am acquainted with a blind person that seemed to be pretty happy with that functionality. LLMs are a whole other issue, but this is a legitimately helpful use case for some people.
I keep hearing the Charlie Unicorn “shun” hisses when I think of people wearing these.
They are pervert glasses. You can tell by the fact there’s so much stuff marketed to covering up the recording light. It’s gross.
Yes, like the men running the companies that make this product.
Say, if I walk around with one of these COVID masks on my face, would I be able to consider myself safe from these?
All glasses are pervert glasses if they're tinted and reflective enough.
Just imagine face tracking with a Camera on every face. Such a great Tech Bro idea.
And still, I don’t get their use case unless it’s to be deliberately sneaky. Even their own ads are just “if you’re a pathetic idiot with no friends or ability to plan ahead even a little bit, these are the glasses for you!”
At a fancy restaurant by yourself and don’t know how the utensils work?
Need a hotel and just wanna blindly trust your glasses?
Can’t speak the local language at a resort full of anglophones and the attendant for some reason only speaks that language?
Or maybe you’re at a concert by yourself and really need to film something(you don’t, everyone else should be putting their fucking phones away, too).
Like LLMs, they’re a sad technology for sad, stupid people.
Zuck is killing the whole industry. 😔
Guys. Complain complain complain.
Every time u see someone with pervert glasses. - email or call to whomever owns that establishment.
This is America, everything is owned by someone.
See shame is good sometimes. If people are too dumb to do the right thing than a shaming hoedown is in order.
Good.
Yeah, that's the entire point of connecting the two...shaming as a coercive control of behavior.
It feels like there is an active war between sane people who don't want fucking cameras staring at them and looking them up on facebook and the revenge porn sites... and "content creators" who want to normalize wearing the thing they are getting sponsorships for because it makes it easier for them to record shopping spree videos (see, kiwi farms own, Linus Tech Tips).
It does bother me a bit since stuff like the xreal are getting caught in the crossfire. But, let's be real, people were just watching porn on flights with those so it is PROBABLY not a great loss for the sickos who plugged those into their steam decks or gameboys.
only a matter of time until they come out with a chip that can record whatever your eyes see directly by intercepting their signals to the brain. Have fun with that one, descendents
Meanwhile commenter Ken's on the prowl.
I started seeing these a few years ago at my optician; all I could think was all the privacy issues they were going to cause.
I for sure will get downvoted for this. But the glasses are not the problem, it's the potential misuse. There are actually lots of applications where augmented reality comes in handy, as for example heads up information related to instructions, or, for example, in a much earlier time, people with, e.g., autism, got a feedback with an emoji, what the mood of the other person was. Or, for example, reading sign language without having thousands of hours spent on that. There are so many useful applications and people are just censoring the technology like they would censor the way now it's mandatory to check for ID's. I really get the idea, that mass surveillance is bad. No discussion about that. But cameras can be used in a good way. The problematic thing is, that you don't really can't tell if somebody is recording you or just using it neatly. But that's the same with smartphones. Everytime somebody is holding his/her smartphone up, doing something, I also think "is he/she recording me right now? Nah, it's probably just used properly..."
I think these would be really cool to stream my scooter rides to my friends but I would probably buy an off brand because I don't trust the weird AI glasses
Camera mounted to your helmet probably works just as well and also might be a deterrent to drivers who might otherwise try to murder you (because you could record them in the attempt)! In that context having a visible camera is probably a good thing.
...I hate that that has to be a thing but yeah.
-- Frost
Except the very worst perverts.
We can't, but we will.
best news to open lemmy to 😂
Only two comments on the article and one of them is most definitely a pervert.
I'm all down for smart glasses, I just don't want anything megacorp on them. If they are to have mics and cams, I want those for AR and voice commands, not to stream me taking to piss to creepy Zuck and his pervert friends.
when did mitch mcconnel appear.
Good
How do we feel about flock or similar camera networks around the world? Like yeah a dude with cameras on his face is one issue and then there's the systemic distribution of millions of cameras which is arguably worse but feels more normal to many.
Nah, I think you guys are weird. Every single person holding a phone up perpendicular to the ground, which is 90% of people walking around these days, could be filming you, why do you care more about glasses?