thatguyinportland
13160
387
12
Jul 28, 2026 3:44 PM
thatguyinportland
13160
387
12
isthisjunkmail
Perv glasses.
Sebastopol140
the title...
dixxienormus
These glasses are a game changer for vision impaired and blind people. The downvoters here are shortsighted.
somerandomusernamebecauseididntlikemyoldone
Was at a wedding where the groom wore these, a couple years back. That was a neat idea, that they could record the proceedings from his perspective and without all the hassle. But just imagining so many people wearing them all the time, and with the leaked info on the facial recognition and the 'always listening' bit, it's nothing but disgusting. Even more so without the light showing it is recording.
eromitlab
Zucc succ, but just our lucc he don't give a fucc because he's making a bucc
Newdonster
Fuck Zuck
someguy7734206
I know those ads were put there by activists who are trying to discourage people from buying those glasses, but I'm afraid they might have the opposite effect. The type of people who would be the target audience for those glasses are the type of people who would see an ad like this and say, "Wow, that sounds great! I need to get myself a pair of those!"
AgainstMethod
That's not big enough market for them to be profitable. Meta desperately needs them to be cool so a significant number of people will buy them.
AyatollahBahloni
It boggles my mind that someone at Meta decided these would be a good idea, given the utter clusterfuck that took place with Google Glass. Have these people no brains at all?
petonious
Not any more. The "good" ones retired and left with the soul of the company.
Wraid
lonelyrangerofthedreams
The whole Facebook thing started from harassing girls and being creepy stalkers to them, so it’s natural as water in the sea to me.
monkeyfly
They have brains but they saw a way to make a few bucks so they didn't care.
FuManLu
And don't forget the SnapChat Glasses vending machines.
AgainstMethod
Eh, there are a bunch of uses for glasses with good audio and a POV camera. The lens just needs to be visible and detachable so you're not pointing a camera at everyone you look at.
fateeverywhere
Sure they do. They have no ethics, is all. Google Glass died because it looked weird and it was immediately obvious that someone was wearing one. With Ray-Ban complicit in this shit, it's now impossible to tell if someone's wearing a surveillance device on first glance.
TheGriffin
There are apps that help identify these things
BarryTheCyborg
Nah, they look stupid as fuck and you'll notice if the person next to you is wearing them.
AgainstMethod
I've definitely failed to notice them before.
firlefranz
YouCantSpellSlaughterWithoutLaughter
These things need to be illegal?
AgainstMethod
I get white people don't like them but I don't see any reason why they'd be illegal.
YouCantSpellSlaughterWithoutLaughter
Filming people without their knowledge or concent should, in general, be illegal, as it is an invasion of privacy. I have the right to decide where images of me end up, and if I don't want them published online, they should not be published online. With hidden cameras, that decision cannot be made.
AgainstMethod
Filming people in public is generally legal. It's basically half of Imgur uploads, after all. But even if you wanted it to be illegal, people do it all the time with their phones. If anything, the indicator light makes the glasses camera more conspicuous.
Don't get me wrong, I would only buy these if the camera was detachable and more visible than this, but there's no call to make the devices themselves illegal.
YouCantSpellSlaughterWithoutLaughter
Well, yes it is legal generally. I'm talking about wether or not it SHOULD be legal. And I think that, in general, it should not.
AgainstMethod
That makes it pretty hard to take pictures in public in general, right?
HairyChairstepper
Hahaha. This is a surveillance state (US). Look at all the flock cameras. Not only will they be legal, but I'm sure "law enforcement" will have full access to them. It will be like that scene in batman where the phones had magic sonar that they used to monitor the city. Only it won't just be one vigilante do-gooder doing the surveilling.
YouCantSpellSlaughterWithoutLaughter
Law enforcment allready has bodycams though, I doubt they need these. But I assume that some goo dold american corruption will make sure police departments buy them anyway.
HairyChairstepper
I think those things are worlds apart. Police body cams are meant for accountability of the officers and obtaining objective evidence of events. And it's literally only where a cop is pointed. The glasses could be used to spy and violate average citizens where they would otherwise assume privacy.
YouCantSpellSlaughterWithoutLaughter
The glasses are just a slightly less conspcuous version of the bodycam. They also only point to where the cop is pointed. The software they are connected to is a bit more dodgy though, but the bodycams will probably be connected to that too in no time.
Personally, I think the glasses should be illegal, as voilation of privacy can be assumed at all times, basically.
DarksteelPenguin
I think what they are saying is that the cops could access *the public's* glasses data, not just their own.
HairyChairstepper
I'm not disagreeing with that. They should be illegal in public. I'm saying that the current (and probably all future) administration in the US loves public surveillance. Public surveillance is totally separate from police accountability.
Fadetoblack021
I get the joke but they can't record without the light being on. I'm not saying it fixes wearing them in private spaces but there's still a way to see if they're on or not.
koalamonster
I work in an optical. We've had a few people buy these. I've watched several videos about them- possibly too many- and it is not hard to either cover or deactivate the light. There are video tutorials on how to do it. If you see videos from any of the creepy pickup guys who use them it seems very clear the women do not know they're being recorded.
AgainstMethod
It's a nice idea, and they're not actually making things much worse since you can already surreptitiously film people in public. But the light can only do so much to alert people even when it isn't disabled.
PennysWorthOfTea
And how difficult do you think it would be to obscure the LED? If "privacy measures" can be defeated by a piece of tape or a dab of paint, they're not so much about protection as they are about doing the bare minimum for the sake of plausible deniability/defending against lawsuits.
dixxienormus
For a blind person - that's about impossible to do.
Fadetoblack021
I don't think it's nearly that easy to defeat them if what I've read about them is true; however, I've never tried to do it myself. There's a lot of technophobes on this site, I get it.
PennysWorthOfTea
It's less "technophobia" & more resisting the forced enshittification of our world by dumbass tech bro. A core tenet of Luddism isn't resisting all new tech but, rather, weighing the adoption of new tech against how it might harm vs benefit society.
Fadetoblack021
I'd say it's the same old mindset that's been happening with progress for millennia. We should hate shitty people, not tools. It's just another way of passing the buck from someone tangible to an idea, then no one is responsible.
PennysWorthOfTea
I can see now that you're both ignorant & privileged. That is truly a tragedy since it so negatively affects your understanding of the world.