this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
793 points (98.7% liked)
Privacy
10624 readers
288 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The thing is, I'd love glasses with a private display. Imagine walking around a strange city with maps displayed in your vision, or giving a talk and having your notes in your view. Specs with screens! But why would I also want a camera? If I wanted to photograph something I can use my phone - perhaps using my SpecScreen as a viewfinder, sure, but the camera can happily live in my phone still. Basically, I'm worried the perverts are going to ruin glasses with HUDs for the rest of us. There must be dozens of us non-perverts, surely?
There are plenty of legit use cases for a camera. Traveling in a foreign place the glasses could overlay text in your language. Looking at a transit table it could highlight the correct route and time. And anytime you meet someone new it could store their name and face in a database.
does that utility outweigh the privacy of the public though?
Shame it's meta because the answer will always skew towards invading privacy and shitting on the others.
Exactly. Navigating a city isn't really that hard from a phone, even if you don't speak the language. You don't need to be staring at it the whole time if you learn how to just orient yourself on a street grid. Having a HUD for that purpose might be a neat trick, but not at the expense of being constantly recorded.
Maybe antlion already replied to you (because I see two replies below your post but one is removed/deleted) but I didn't take antlion's comment as if it outweigh the privacy invasion.
Though, it is a shame that all the cool tech and legit use cases are for nothing because it's packaged with invasive spyware.
You have no expectation of privacy in public.
WELL GOLLY GEE I GUESS THAT FUCKIN ENDS THE DISCUSSION HUH?
No, it doesn't. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
See, there's actually laws about this shit that you "no expectation of privacy" creeps love to ignore. And these tools are making it easier.
Why do you want to make it easier to creep on little girls?
What the fuck is wrong with you? Now you're projecting pedophilia. Why are you thinking about fucking kids? What the fuck is your problem?
yeah it's so crazy to care about women and children being creeped upon.
do you even think about what you write?
You have no expectation of privacy in public. It's not my fault you're too fucking stupid to understand that. You're the one that keeps mentioning women and children when literally all I said was that you have no expectation of privacy in public because you have no expectation of privacy in public you phenomenal fucking moron, I never said a fucking thing about any fucking thing else and you're losing your dumb fucking mind because you're a screeching twat that can't read. Go fuck yourself you psychotic shit.
PRIVACY NO, PROTECTION FROM VOYERISM YES.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
STOP MAKING IT SEEM OK TO CREEP ON PEOPLE IT'S ACTUALLY FUCKING ILLEGAL.
You phenomenal dolt, why are you advocating for women and children to be abused you dumb fucking shit
Ok you preponderously ignorant fuckass, where did I ever mention voyeurism? Where did I ever make a value judgement about camera glasses. You miserable psychotic fucking creep, I literally only ever said you don't have an expectation of privacy in public and you lost your fucking mind. You dumb fucking piece of shit, learn to fucking read you fucking stupid fuck. Anybody that screams pedophile with no provocation shouldn't be participating in the public. Dumb twat, go fuck yourself.
There is no privacy in public, by definition of those two words. I’m less concerned about a camera on somebodies face, and more concerned about the legality of doing facial recognition, and identifying and tracking of people without their explicit consent. See one is about the personal utility of camera-interfaced computing, and the other is corporate espionage. But unless lawmakers can draw that line and enforce it, we will probably just end up with spyware.
creep. so quick to carve out the rules by which you and other can invade the privacy of individuals. you know there's a difference between general photography and this. you know this. I don't have to explain it to you.
you're just a creep who wants to creep on women and kids.
Er. What is the antonym of private?
You caught me. I go around with my wife and daughter so I can get away with being a creep. Don’t tell the moms on the playground.
if you cared about them you'd care about this. the fact that you immediately jump to legal definitions created in the age of film is absurd; there was never a minox that had 4k video, but that's what we're looking at these days. and you don't seem to care that there's a booming market to disable the recording lights.
If I were your wife and daughter I'd be creeped out by you.
You don’t know shit about me bro. Creepers gonna creep. If they want to hide a camera they can do it in lapel pin or something. Being paranoid about it won’t stop anything. Making legislation to require a recording light will just de-tune the public’s vigilance when they don’t see a light. It won’t stop people from taking discrete photos. If you’re scared of having your photo taken, stay inside. There are a huge number of automatic license plate cameras owned by corporations logging your plates. They may also be capturing and analyzing your face. That is a lot more concerning to me than some dude wearing glasses.
and you want them to have better equipment to creep with.
lapel pin cameras are shitty resolution, and you can't point them at your target by moving your head.
stop acting like it's not a problem. I'm not scared of having MY photo taken, it's the upskirts on escalators and creeps peering down blouses, you dolt.
I despise license plate cameras, but that's an entirely different kind of invasion of privacy and you KNOW this.
I know you're not concerned by some dude wearing glasses, and I can see you don't give two fucks about those who are.
At least with glasses cameras they aren’t filming anything they can’t already see
You don't care. We get it.
I don't see the uproar over cameras on the face when pinhole button cameras have existed for decades.
Enough of this dystopian bullshit! Or was that satire?
It was a bit self-satirical. But it would be really helpful for me, if it existed. I’m not about to buy a face camera but I can imagine some people in sales might like such a feature.
If someone in sales is logging and recording my interactions with them, storing my name and face in a database and feeding it into facial recognition software, then I'm not buying anything from them.
Me neither. In fact regardless of what’s on their face they can fuck right off.
one of the leaked "test" features that everyone hated was the facial recognition...and i get it. lot's of opertunity for abuse. Shame though as that would be SO usfull to those with prosopagnosia or people like me who have an inability to remember names. It has hurt me profesionaly throughout my life. having the name and a few relivent facts about people pop up would just put me on the same playing field with those who can remember.
A while ago I would have agreed with this whole heartedly.
Now I'm old and grumpy and everything seems like a can / should question where the "should" part is only satisfied if a really significant problem is solved, because the "can" part always requires a trade off that is rarely worth the cost.
Same. I even have a pair that I'm working on setting up as an accessibility device, but i worry that even with the camera looking thing taped, that it's going to cause issues, especially since I'll have a visible wire hooked up to a raspberry pi.
EDIT: I forgot to specify that this is a viture luma and not the meta raybans, which i wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole
How would a view like that work without a camera? It needs to see streets to display the map accurately since GOS could only be accurate within 5meters sometimes.
It doesn't have to be a full on quest marker HUD overlay, just being able to glance at a mirror of your phone's map display in your peripheral vision without taking it out of your pocket would be great.
You just need GPS and a compass. https://www.evenrealities.com/products/g2-a
Ok if I had the kind of money to buy that casually I might, the transcription looks useful
I'm tempted by the (semi) open source possibilities https://hub.evenrealities.com/
You don’t have the cameras for taking picture but for augmented reality. For example maybe for your maps, it would place arrows in the right spots, or labels to identify landmarks on the landmarks themselves. It might highlight how far ahead the crosswalk is.
Starting to get in the grey area but as someone horrible with names, I want it to tell me who I’m talking to
I'm a pervert and I'm right there with you. I have destroyed three pairs of these so far.