“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.

  • Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

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

    • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Hindsight is 20/20 but only few, if any, expected how big of a giant piece of shit Facebook will become and especially its founder. Most people thought it is just another fad, and expected it will go the way of most other social media sites at the time such as Friendster, Bebo and MySpace.

        • Railing5132@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          Zuck was always a giant piece of shit. On discussing the information its first users’ willingness to give personal details to The Face Book back at (?) Harvard (?) he said: “… They just send it to me. They trust me. The dumb fucks.”

          He was mask-off from the beginning. We’re (society, not addressing anyone individually) just really blind to threats when distracted by shiny, noisy crap.

        • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It’s kind of like survivorship bias: The ones who rise to the very top must be the most ruthless and biggest pieces of shit. It’s like taking 20 trials to rise to the top, and to succeed each trial fucking others over and only concerning yourself with your advancement is beneficial. It only leaves the worst.

  • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    47 minutes ago

    This practicality has reportedly allowed some men in Brussels to secretly record women in public spaces.

    You have no expectation of privacy in public places. In fact, if you’re in a public place you should assume you’re being recorded.

    This tech has privacy concerns for sure, but this isn’t it.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      29 minutes ago

      I disagree. If you have thousands of these and some program live cross-matching and correlating everything about everyone, it is a different problem from “being seen in public” or even traditional street cameras. Before, they could investigate a limited number of people, so they had to focus on suspects and a case. Now they just mass trawl everyone’s lives simultaneously.

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 minutes ago

        Who is “they” here?

        The fact is that if you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy………because you’re in public.

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 seconds ago

      In Belgium people do have an expectation of privacy in public, what they did is straight up illegal under Belgian law. If they want to film or photograph a person (not as an accidental passerby, but as the subject as was the case here), then they need to get consent from that person. If they want to share that footage online, then they need consent for that as well.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 minutes ago

      In the US that won’t pass muster, laws aren’t the same everywhere.

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 minutes ago

        Looking at US laws it appears you’re wrong. Unless you’re in a bathroom or somewhere where privacy is expected, recording in public places without permission is completely legal.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The cameras on poles are meant for public spaces and security. Meta glasses are for whatever the fuck the wearer will intend the recordings for for private use.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • potoooooooo 🥔@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It wouldn’t historically be crazy to take your sunglasses into a locker room or bathroom, for example. Now? WTF DUDE. YOU SOME KIND OF CREEP!?

    • 4grams@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      One is state approved surveillance. The other is just a camera that is limited in scope, view, and usage.

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Because somehow those recordings being misused is less offensive than these recordings being misused.

      Honestly, the privacy aspect in public is completely out the window already. Anyone arguing that these are somehow worse than what already exists is either arguing in bad faith or misunderstands the current (previous?) state of things.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They’re not worse, but having yet another thing invading our privacy in public IS worse. No sense in giving up even more ground.

        • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 minutes ago

          invading our privacy in public

          Stop and think about what you just said for a second. Privacy……in public. You have no privacy in public, those are opposites.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Difference being: we’re kind of powerless against government surveillance high up on a fence, but we can sanction the class traitor glassholes with an accidental elbow to the glasses and a clumsy step on them.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Seems like you’re giving a pass to government and corpos, while assaulting fellow citizens.

          I intend on getting whatever glasses eventually come out with an AR layer involved, camera or not. Doesn’t mean I’ll be constantly recording. In fact I’d likely almost never record anything.

          And apparently that means I deserve an elbow to the face.

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            No, I am not giving a pass to government and corpos. But people recording others in public are henchmen of the very same fascist governments and yes, you deserve an elbow to the face if you record ANYONE (in more detail than within a large group of pedestrians) in public EVER without their explicit consent. Because you are - at least in civilized countries - violating privacy laws with the expectation that no one will sue you for it.

            • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 minutes ago

              You’ll find that in almost every civilised country recording in public is 100% allowed. It’s what you do with the footage that has restrictions and laws around it.

              Privacy in public is not a thing. They’re literally antonyms.

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        What are you even talking about? How is being filmed not worse than not being filmed, privacy-wise?

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      This is what I don’t get either. We literally have dozens of various camera options monitoring us in public, from random video doorbells to store CCTV, state/police CCTV, Google Maps cars, people on their phones, police officers and even random hired security thugs posing around with wearable cameras, drones, you name it… but the problem is cameras built into glasses?

      Most European countries have actually codified that one has no expectations of privacy in public - that is, one may be recorded while out and about. Of course there’s legislations about harassment - e.g. following someone with a camera and specifically recording them, in an attempt to harass or threaten them - and what essentially constitutes as blackmail (“I’ll remove this video of you if you pay me”), so people should be using the recourse for those crimes, not criminalising a new product category.

      Just owning a camera didn’t make upskirt photos legal, nor does using a Meta camera glass make harassment legal.

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    8 hours ago

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

        • Art3mis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Yes exactly. Their question was parallel to asking why a company like gatorade ([Pokesi]) would put hfcs and barely any vitamins in their sports drinks. Its a mega corp now and only cares about profit, not image.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Gatorade never had vitamins, even in its original formulation. It was flavored water with salt to help athletes with electrolyte depletion.

            Also, Gatorade is owned by Pepsi. Maybe you’re thinking of Powerade, which was crap.

            • Art3mis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Yeah, i seem to have gotten their parent corp mixed but idgaf about which soda mega corp is giving people diabetes as a sports supplement, so…

              Powerade has more electrolytes and vitamins that support recovery. They are both ass but powerade is def the better options of the two. Gatorade is fr just sugar water.

    • PushButton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 minutes ago

      They are so many fuckers around, because they can get away with it.

      When I was younger, it was more “fuck around, find out”.

      There are too much " find out" missing in our current days…

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I am so lucky I have been to french quarter celebrations before smartphones. Some things are meant to be experienced and not documented.

  • kevinsky@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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

    • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 minutes ago

      I’m sorry but no one believes people when they say things like this, because it’s just not true. Pretending to be a tough guy on the internet is easy, but you’re not going to choose to go to jail because you saw a person with glasses on.

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Doesn’t sound like the other person would consent, but if I were on your jury I’d say you were clearly defending yourself.

  • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I know this is in the EU and I’m in the US but unfortunately to keep people honest you need to be able to record them in public. It’s a double edged sword yeah people will do perverted thing but there is no perfect solution.

    • bthest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Why do you need to be able to record people secretly? How does secretly recording a person keep them honest?

      • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 minutes ago

        Think about it this way - if someone pulled out a knife and started stabbing people in public, should people be able to record it without asking the stabber for permission or not?

        In public you have no expectation of privacy…… because you’re in public. Public and private are quite literally the opposite of each other.

  • ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

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

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Right? It’s a collab between Meta and Ray-Ban ffs, what kind of people did they think were going to be buying them?

    • kevinsky@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      AI’s against AI’s. Apps against apps. I want to get off this planet at the next stop.