this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
225 points (99.6% liked)

Privacy

51283 readers
273 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52666693

Another win for privacy <3

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They need to make it a big giant bright flashing light for recording like some old video cameras had on them.

[–] pomp@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The creeps will just find a way to remove it.

[–] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

But that's illegal

[–] irotsoma@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Yeah, I mean there are glasses that already exist that are designed to be less obvious they have cameras on them, but they aren't sold en masse to the general public that way. You can't avoid it. And modding for illicit purposes is always going to be an issue with any technology. But the majority of people don't have those skills and it will be more obvious to people once they know what to look for, if the light is removed or covered up. At least it would create a socially awkward situation for the majority, just like not aiming your phone camera around inside a changing room isn't a major issue because people know where the camera is. Knowing an individual pair of glasses has a camera isn't as easy as knowing all phones have one, so more of an indicator is needed. Of course there are still people who film in changing rooms with their phones, but it dissuades the casual from creeps doing it.

[–] TrackenDaKracken@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I finally got to handle a demo pair at Best Buy a few weeks back. They feel cheap and creaky. No one mentions this.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 35 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] hypnicjerk@piefed.social 7 points 3 days ago

you're not my perv visor!

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The problem with the light is, it's incredibly small and dim, so is very easy to miss. Plus, people aren't aware of what to look for yet because they're not used to being around this "perv-vision".

I saw a guy at a sandwich shop with them and he was loud and bragging about them which was the only reason I knew he had them.

I'm honestly shocked they're allowed in Illinois being there's the "all party consent" law still in effect where any audio surveillance or recording needs to make all parties aware they're being recorded. Then add in the BIPA (biometric information privacy act) where you KNOW Meta is going to use face ID or facial recognition to tag or show the owner who's who.

US https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-glasses-ray-ban-from-public-and-private-use

UK https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-ai-glasses

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

If camera glasses would be banned under all party consent then every last camera and microphone would be banned.

All party consent may only apply in private, too. A sandwich shop doesn't count.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's the audio recording that matters. In Illinois, you can have cameras, no problem, but no audio UNLESS you post signage up about having audio video surveillance. This way even in public you're "notified" about audio being used.

In a sandwich shop, I might speak at a low enough volume a camera mic wouldn't pick me up. With no one around me to hear, the expectation is whomever I'm speaking to would be private, while in public, and they're not recording the convo either.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure news orgs don't have to disclose that every time they interview someone in the streets.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well if you're being interviewed, or passing someone being interviewed, it'd be obvious with cameras and crew there. Those cameras aren't discreet.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

It doesn't matter in public. First amendment protects it.