'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows
seattletimes.com
seattletimes.com
I think this gets at only half of the problem. Not only can meta not be trusted, even if I trust _you_ if you were friend, I wouldn't trust any _other_ random user of such a product. As such, better to not have such a product around.
It's basically the same backlash that hit Google Glass over a decade ago. Nothing has really changed about the product and the reason people reject is so viscerally when they're not the user.
We told em tough don’t use our kid’s photo. So even if institutions implement this kinda thing almost non want to do it.
It's rare we get serious wins over big tech. It's tough to think of something else that's been so roundly societally rejected, not so much as a bad product, but as something that's loathed so much it has no future.
Just make it obvious that they're not ordinary glasses, but recording devices.
Not just a tiny LED that can be covered, but something like the camera is on an arm that swings out in front of the wearer so there's no mistaking that a recording is in progress.
The fact that they're designed for stealth shows the nefarious intent.
I don't think we have to go so far as assigning nefarious intent here, there are a lot of reasons they're designed as they are. For example your proposed solution is bulky, expensive and prone to damage, so there's plenty of non-nefarious reasons they don't have it operate that way.
I am 100% on board with calling smart glasses "Pervert glasses" if worn in situations that call for it
i dont want to have a camera stuck to my face that i dont really control in order to see
This may be a body camera or a camera built into glasses. That is a very legit usecase as far as I'm concerned.
There are other professions in which such a device would be a net benefit, that was just a simple example.
what would these offer that can't already be done w/ their existing solutions, outside of streaming data to evil megacorps?
If it was about the latter then I'd agree that there is no usecase for them
I think we should really make a distinction between products that do and do not have cameras. Most people would probably be fine with the 'smart' aspects of it if it didn't have any video recording capabilities. On the other hand, most of the average people specifically want these things to be able to record videos, so maybe hoping for such devices is a non-starter.
People generally commit less crime if they think they're on camera
If they do commit a crime, at least there would be video evidence
Or if they just want to be creepy, I'd send those stares to their wife
Considering motivated perverts would use hidden cameras, as opposed to cameras literally on their face, I think the asymmetry here is in favor of recording the perverts rather than vice versa
Unlike the sword, the camera itself does not incite deeds of violence
My understanding at least is that cameras (or even signs) reducing/preventing crime by _some_ amount has been independently corroborated across multiple studies
Extend hand for a handshake. Hey, I'm [name]. We've met before but it's been a while.
First, it lets the other person off the hook, because they're almost certainly experiencing the same momentary anxiousness. Second, literally every time I've done this, they've replied like "Hi, nice to talk to you again! And I'm [name]."
Each reminder is geofenced to the business it's attached to. Thus, when I get within the vicinity of any of the businesses in that list, it shows me the reminder. Kind of like a Rolodex. It doubles as a flash card of sorts when I don't patron the business that day.
I don't depend on it as much these days as this simply existing helped me get better at name recall, but it was immensely helpful when I created it.
The no camera HUD is exactly what I want, except I also want SSH (Mosh) and sending text to speech to it before I'd buy these.
I mean, the real answer is that we have the technology to be tech wizards. You could conjure spatially anchored widgets and screens and gauges.
You could put a cooking show screen above the stove, where a physical screen wouldn't work. You could put a synced calendar on the wall. Notes app on the fridge, weather reminders by the door. ...a million mundane conveniences in the house alone.
But still, its too heavy and to do the spatial anchoring you need a device with a constant camera feed and the only folks who make that at the moment have questionable morals.
Some of the attitudes on this website, especially ones like yours, are the literal reason we are in this mess today.
Please, please, if you have the power, push back on this nonsense from the inside. We need more people talking to other people like real humans, not like notes in a digital diary.
This push for « convenience » is how we ended up with microphones in people’s most private spaces.
I urge you to consider whether humanity really needs more technological solutions to social problems.
It's XR, for them it's a notes app in the convenient place, for me it might be a next meeting reminder on the wall next to my work screen, so I can work less distracted and more focused.
Why is their way of enriching their connected life a problem?
I think some of the worst attitudes on this website is projecting own worst case scenarios and implying bad intentions to the most innocuous or honest signals. That's the problem much bigger than someone's glasses - you support polarisation and teaming (us vs them) instead of seeking connection or understanding.
It's like people obsessing over window managers. 99% of the time, the amount of windows you have showing is not the problem, you can't really focus on more than one at a time anyway.
Consider as a demonstrative example, race car drivers. They have had options to have extremely detailed Heads Up Displays with all sorts of absurd data available at a glance for decades. But they largely do not use tons of data like that, because it's just not compatible with the human brain. They already are looking at things more often and processing more info than a "normal" person while racing, but that heads up display would not benefit them.
Similarly, the Heads Up Display for modern fighter jets is very lightweight, focusing on allowing you to see around it and provide you the very basics of flight instrumentation and a standard orientation instrument.
People just have wild ideas about how to "optimize" their lives that are just not supported by reality.
You would be better off making flash cards about those things you want to "know" in that moment and drilling them.
I too used to be drawn to this idea. Back in 2016ish, I got an ODBII dongle for my car and app for my phone and was so excited about all the data I was going to have at a glance, just like some sort of pro! But the data was pointless and meaningless. Oh, timing advance is at 20 degrees in this throttle regime. Cool I guess.
Eventually I gave up and only have my car showing instantaneous fuel efficiency, which is the only valuable data point for my needs.
It's kind of a bad example, because there are other reasons that we don't have HUDsin cars.
A friend of mine designed car interiors. His explanation went like this:
With a HUD, you have to pick a focus point.
In an airplane, when you look forward, your eyes are always focused at infinity, so the HUD is focused there. It has the same focus point as your eyes.
In a car everything is slower and closer, so you have to constantly change your focus.
The HUD though has a single focus point though, and drivers' eyes tend to lock onto the HUD's focus. This focus lock interferes with normal scanning, and drivers stop seeing important things. They don't notice important things, so they get into accidents.
According to him, HUDs in cars lead to much higher accident rates.
Honestly, they sound all useless. Like, junk gandgets you get because someone needed to give you a christmas gift, then you use them for like 2 weeks as toys and then they end up forgotten collecting dust junk.
The reason people dont have those is because they dont have real actual utility.
Its the final gadget.
Reminds me of ipad and to a lesser extent, apple watch. It came out with a ton of hype, tons of people got one, only to never really use it because hey, it only does the exact same stuff as the phone you carry around with you all the time anyhow.
I think the one thing that a headset does bring to the table is the hands free nature of it. There are quite a few AR apps and use cases that phones can currently do that fall short because you need to hold your phone out and that's really invasive and fatiguing.
In theory you could have things like a walk through of a DIY engine repair that adds virtual pointers and highlights to important things.
You could do this in a video where you go to your phone, watch a step, rewind, put the phone down, find where in the real world the thing is, do the thing, wipe your hands, pick up the phone, repeat etc. but I imagine it would be nicer in AR.
I'm not saying spend a trillion dollars on this, just that it would be a neat thing.
the new scooters and such will actually fix that as infrastructure gets rebuilt to better support them.
the end of having e-scooters will be that things are a little better for wheelchairs, even if there's a temporary rougher spot
The core problem of solitude is curiosity and sonder.
When I smell fennel on a hike, I want to know what it is - yeah, this is dog fennel.
When I see a strange symbol on a taxi car, I want to know why it is 3 arrows on bow and what that is.
Seeing a strange dog and wondering what kind of dog that is (a whippet?). A glimpse of a black bird with red shoulder patches.
Hearing someone's ringtone (not these days anymore) and wonder why it is familiar ("ah, it is spelled fa9la, who'd have guessed").
There is a twinge of "This is why we can't have nice things" about the whole article for someone who can't get enough of the world you can see through your eyes.
Different stokes, though.
It can be less intrusive than using a phone, I believe. That makes it a step closer to being present. (I don't know specifics, but I'm assuming that the display can be turned off when not in use.)
Also, if someone already wears glasses, why not have glasses that can do more?
You can simply talk to people, we don't have to enable your perversions because you refuse to interact with humans.
(didn't work out that way in practice, but that was the idea)
Mindfulness >>> recordings, any day of the week. Be there with your kid and don't worry about capturing every precious moment. You're never going to have enough time to curate them anyway. Even if you did, the time spent curating is time you could've just been hanging out with your kid instead.
This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from happening. Blame US, consumers, not our corporate overlords.
Here's what I think: I think it is essential to protect freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This is just an unfortunate consequence of those freedoms. If you want to protect womens discomfort then you have to restrict these freedoms. I'm against that. This is an unfortunate situation but the alternative is worse. Because ONCE those rules are in place and codified into law, censorship and freedoms can become bigger and worse.
Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena.
Either way, despite what I believe, it's already to late. This freedom is already restricted by Wiretapping law. If someone threatens to kill you and you wiretap it as evidence... that evidence is dismissible in court even after said subject (you) was found dead. We are rapidly moving towards a world where a persons discomfort can control your freedoms and even dictate reality (evidence).
Sounds absurd only because you don't understand.
Same for phones too while we're at it.
The freedom to record affectively tempers freedom of speech and stops people from using the former freedom excessively.
That's not how the law works in the U.S. or most of Europe. A recording of the defendant threatening to kill the victim is admissible as evidence, especially if the victim winds up dead shortly thereafter. For example, see https://www.thebulldog.law/california-penal-code-633-5-the-v...
And importantly, these exceptions are only required in two-party-consent jurisdictions, of which there are only about a dozen. The remaining states are one-party consent. Most of Europe is one-party consent.
People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim that its solely the victim's responsibility to prevent this sort of thing. But I ask, what is the victim's recourse if they legit do not want to be filmed and broadcast? Just stay home? Are we seriously going to give third-tier facebook-live streamers that much power?
I feel like "if asked, don't monetize content containing others, if the content only occurred because of the recorder's actions". Like, yes, if you're in public, you can be filmed, sure. But if I ask you not to film me, and then you make money off a recording of just me saying "don't film me", that feels less like free speech, and more like monetizing actionable harassment.
Obviously, we cannot wholly bar these jack wagons from going out and finding the exact edge of “harassment worth pursuing legal action over”. But we can lower the cost of pursuing legal action, and raise the cost of defending against such action. That’s all I’m proposing.
Flatly untrue. Can you get harassed regardless of anything in particular? Sure. Is the probability of harassment tied to various factors, like the way you dress? Absolutely yes.
My daughters have dealt with sexual harassment. Should I tell them to dress less sluttily? I mean, they wear what I buy for them, and I don’t think I buy anything wildly inviting of anything. But what do I know?! I’m just the father of a 7 and 6 year old.
Imagine if tomorrow we invented ubiquitous instant teleportation to arbitrary locations.
There would be a moment where we hear how great it is to eliminate commutes, or air travel, followed shortly afterwards by the collapse of civilisation as societies grapple with the elimination of property, what remains of private space, and so on.
The wrapper is hard/impossible to remove, only the company can trigger the self-release mechanism, and customers have to sign that they owe you a lot of money when they remove or damage it (which is risky, so they have to be careful or it's their problem). You basically just rent it to them, for lots of money per month, so they can show off their Good Guy Glasses (hey that's actually a name! can I have 10% please if anyone does this, I'll also help out if you want, maybe with the tiny sledge hammer. thanks!).
"Oh, you can afford Meta glasses to be a perv? Well, I can't afford the equivalent of a bunch of them every year, but I still do it because I'm a good person."
The ad could be some street kid in the rain with some guy (Morgan Freeman maybe) offering to sell it these glasses, saying "you can pay in tiny rates" and whatnot, and the kid just sadly shakes its head.. so the guy goes down on one knee, eye to eye with the kid and says... "When I was your age, I thought everything is about money, too. But some things are about being a good person. If you had a mommy, surely she would want you to be a good person, right?" The kid nods, still hesitates, but by the way the music swells as the ad fades you just know it's gonna be alright.
I’m not telling you that I think you’re wrong or foolish, to be clear! I just have this different instinct from you, although it sounds like we basically agree on the reflective level. I’m interested in what it is that directs peoples’ attention and interest in such a way that new information technology products pattern-match to “cool, shiny, new, handy, exciting; freedom” or to “dystopian social control, creepy surveillance capitalism; unfreedom.” People have different System 1 intuitions, orthogonal to their System 2 thinking!
It’s so weird because I used to be the other way. I can’t put my finger on when or how the phase transition took place in my mind.
In the beginning they stepped in with the cloud to bring the "always available" thing to the masses, while simultaneously socially and legally destroying the burgeoning p2p ecosystem. Convenience at the cost of freedom.
That had the effect of kneecapping the technological progress and knowhow of ordinary people and has left them trapped on platforms they moved their lives to but are owned by their abusers.
The abusers are now in complete control and the abused have no ability to even imagine an alternative.
The alternative is to leave these platforms. Form alternate social groups with open technologies that stay resilient to outages and attacks.
We don't need the cloud anymore for the vast majority of civic and social life.
We got tech and only then realized all the things that we then lost.
black mirror is a breath of fresh air in that, but even that lacks in how to think about how technology and society really interact
"I see you're looking at a car. How about this new Toyota RAV4?" "I see you're looking at a mobile phone. How about this new Samsung Galaxy Fold which is on sale." "I see you're looking at a cup of coffee. How about this new Latte from Starbucks down the road just a mile from here."
Just thinking about it drives me nuts with rage!
I think you are fighting a losing battle if you choose to allow your kids to enter society.
Similar to how cops getting a warrant and tapping a single person's phone is different from the government spying on all citizens at all times.
Probably safer with a stranger considering children attacked by people they know.
People should be more worried at facebook scanning faces and linking photos to real identities.
So it'd be less likely that someone would film me and upload it to instagram or facebook.
The metaverse was the same thing: they are willing to spend an inordinate amount of money on the chance that something new - in this case face-computers - will be the next big platform.
Meta does lose revenue when Apple and Google introduce privacy features and decrease ad tracking efficacy. They also hate that unlike the web, where their cookies and tracking pixels provided near 100% coverage of your behaviour, on your phone you might be doing something that they can’t log and analyse.
In the meantime, I use the Metas on dog walks, take fast pics of wild life, while biking, things like that, AirPods annoy me even if I own a few pairs. I don't even like the Metas, they are too heavy on the face, they are far from attractive, but they are the only thing of its kind I can buy in the states with my vision insurance (hello, Luxotica and LensCrafters). So please, don't come at me when you see me outside, I'm simply walking my dog.
The idea that looking around would instantiate ads sounds pretty bad. (though the devil's advocate position would be - compare that world to the one we live in today where the ads are viewable to everyone all the time). For that to happen Meta couldn't force people to buy it, the product would have to be so compelling that people wanted it despite that. Think about how good that product would need be?
Later on, when everyone's hooked they'll start showing these "relevant ads" when you look at things. Slowly at first but over time it will become a torrent.
I'm going to torch these things publicly in the street if this ever becomes a reality.
I know personally I'd love to see a private/local/wide distribution division or something like that where simply going outside to get groceries or whatever doesn't count as consent to be plastered across the net. There are real harms to being a public figure and the net rarely understands context.
I do have one note on all this though. I think there are some real benefits to being able to record people in public re corruption, criminality etc so I don't think any changes should be about public recording but about distribution instead.
(Repost from the thread earlier today on the same subject)
I think this is pretty reasonable and something I hadn't thought of. I've been thinking about this generally a bunch as I agree that the blanket "No right to privacy in public" is really just lazy. Of course we've been filmed in public for decades now, but it wasn't being shown to people on the internet this whole time (or even to anyone in many cases). Concessions could be made for filming police/public figures and people committing crimes. It's probably harder than I think, but just being able to post anyone online is pretty terrible whether it's your "right" or not. Think of all the godawful nuisance "content" that would have just never existed.
Well, let me stop you right there. That's the bit that needs fixing.
There's a museum with a very distinct building that is infamous for sending security staff out to tell photographers they cannot image the building. They have no idea what someone will do with the image, so they have no legal basis to prevent someone from taking the picture.
That's what
> That's the bit that needs fixing.
means.
Which one is that?
If they said it's because the design of the building is copyrighted, they're just wrong. Nor can they prohibit the taking of photographs from off the property.
It seems plausible that the Perot Museum is copyrighted, and being post-1990 this should be a sure protection, but however, it should also be always permissible to photograph the exterior from public places and there should be nothing the staff can legally do to discourage this activity.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panora...
Interior photography by patrons would be another matter, and discretion and policy would be in play there as well.
In which country? Certainly not the USA. There are very few countries in which this is true, such as France and Italy.
It’s an ok system but too restrictive and outdated IMHO, so many people recording something with their phone will unwillingly record people passing by, which is likely not allowed.
I think this is wanting a rule that doesn't draw boundaries in a way that aligns with the natural world. Your right to see what is around you and to remember what you see is pretty fundamental. You might say there is a ethical reason not to gossip about what you remember seeing, but I would push back on the idea that it ought to be illegal for Bob to mention to Carol that he saw Alice at the store, and Meta glasses (or paparazzi or even Snow Crash's gargoyles) are a difference of degree, not kind, from the neighborhood gossip.
Gossip is lossy, video is much less so. When gossiping, the information is trusted less by default.
There is an invasive aspect to candid video that does not exist in gossip (not even slightly).
AFAICT the main use case for camera glasses is very similar to the "gopro on your helmet" use case for cyclists:
- to record cool first-person video to upload to TikTok et al
- to warn cars / creeps "I'm recording this and will send footage to the cops"
AFAICT, influencers generally want people to know they're influencers. They're using meta glasses not because the glasses let them go incognito, they're wearing them because a gopro on a helmet is dorky.
And obviously an incognito camera is going to be much less useful staving off harassment than an obvious one.
In the meantime, it's quite telling that Meta is choosing not to.
They want recording to be constant, impossible to detect, and normalized. That's why the camera light is so subtle and easy to cover. The more constant surveillance is normalized, the more they have data about every single facet of our lives to sell to advertises.
In this case, maybe there could be some mandated standardized high-viz indicator that there is a camera lens being pointed at you in wearable devices.
I could see maybe allowing the high-viz element to be concealed if the mechanism concealing it also blocks the lens.
It's also marvelous for taking videos of your children playing at the park. Here's my daughter at Port Moody https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcLAByw6ZYc
Very ergonomic and you get your hands free to catch them if something is about to happen. In the end, we didn't end up using them that much because the whole charging thing makes it kind of annoying, but that's about the only reason. I can't imagine I'd use it in a context where I wouldn't wear a GoPro, but it's a cool form factor.
First, I've had these for about 2-years. I purchased them to capture candid pictures and video's on a cruise and they were fantastic for that purpose but I've bought two pairs in two years and won't buy them again.
When you email Ray Bans for support they send you a wall of text mentioning everything their warranty doesn't cover. It was enough to discourage me from continuing to get a case replacement 2-weeks after my purchase and I just bought a third-party adapter instead. I expected more from the brand. I won't buy Ray Bans (Meta or otherwise) again because of the hostility in that one email.
My first pair died after 1-year (I gave them away after 6-months and they only lasted the new owner another 6-months). My second pair died after just over a year.
I'd love to have a good pair of camera/audio glasses. The audio is one of the best parts. But these Meta glasses aren't it for me anymore.
e.g. she is also here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/07/16/orchid-...
Our family is public in a few ways:
* Our pregnancy log https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Pregnancy
* Our IVF process https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/IVF
* My genome https://viz.roshangeorge.dev/roshan-genvue/
These are all, to us, normal aspects of life and there is a grand taboo around many of these normal things. I want to shift the Overton window back to normalcy. Yes, there are risks, but the alternative is to play along with the taboo-ification of normalcy and I don't want to be part of that.
For instance, most online commenters talk about how there's no sense of community and this and that. Well, I have this. Many people have this: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-10-09/Community
It's normal. But all the people who don't are on the Internet talking about it and propagating the kind of behaviour that makes it prevalent. I want to show them there's another way out.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, you gave me something to think about
Although its even more disheartening that most people's reactions to just about anything these days is dread about how it'll make their lives worse without fail.
What is _your_ default assumption re: use case? I honestly can't think of any use cases (outside of very niche a11y uses) that are not in some way offensive, though perhaps not 'perverted'.
This product is absolutely toxic, and I can't imagine myself or anyone I know being willing to associate or socialize with someone wearing them (again, excluding some very specific a11y use).
Also, I really, really hope you take them off when using the shared bathrooms at such an event. And you know, keep them off. Permanently.
Being able to snap a pic without getting too far out of the moment, like when I am at a museum or in a beautiful place is great.
Even better is being able to snap a picture of my grandchildren without distracting them. As soon as I pull out my phone, they are grabbing for it. Some of my favorite pics were taken by my meta glasses.
That my friend is the reason everybody hates them
Hmm, here's a few that could potentially be implemented in augmented glasses, though I have no idea if they're implemented yet:
- Giving me directions via an overlay when I'm walking around without requiring me to pull out my phone
- overlay of a recipe when I'm cooking something new
- pointing out constellations in the night sky
- reminding me of people's names and/or upcoming plans with them
- price comparisons in grocery stores; the glasses read the prices and tell you how they compare to prices in other nearby stores
- (at the gym) correcting someone's form on weightlifting, with visual overlays
- taking pictures in general
- easy recording of ICE or police
I dont understand how this one comes up thay often. It just sounds like the most useless thing ever. These literally make me suspect I am only one who cooks here while others kind of imagine what it might be like or something.
> price comparisons in grocery stores; the glasses read the prices and tell you how they compare to prices in other nearby stores
Like you are going to another store for milk and to yet another for butter? Are you already doing that with phone and need to take it out is what prevents it?
I cook all the time. I usually use my ipad for new recipes online, but it's a bit old and slow and I don't like having to scroll, and I wish there were better ways to record notes on the recipes.
> Like you are going to another store for milk and to yet another for butter?
I'll go to another store for milk and butter next time, if it's cheaper.
> Are you already doing that with phone and need to take it out is what prevents it?
No, I want another app to already to the price comparisons for me.
But yeah, this is probably the weakest of the ideas. I'm not writing a doctoral dissertation here; I'm just running with some things I'd want to try out. It's off the cuff.
Obvious non-perverted use cases:
* HUD when your hands are occupied - biking, cooking, etc.
* Camera-augmented navigation directions, especially indoors
* Shopping, price comparison
* Tourism, museum visits - automatically surfacing information about historical landmarks or artworks.
I would have loved to have smart glasses for these reasons, but unfortunately, the perverts ruined it for the rest of us and made the product category toxic.
most of them use meta glasses it seems to record the pov
I for one prefer taking pictures with the Meta glasses when traveling. Taking a phone out of your pocket, launching an app, holding the phone in front of you until you align the object in focus and then tapping a button starts feeling so inelegant after a while, compared to a quick press on the side of the glasses. The picture also comes out looking exactly how you saw it, videos are from your POV.
When driving, I like hearing the GPS navigation instructions discreetly without having my ears blocked by earphones and the car music being interrupted (also my wife can't stand the navigation voice and always asks me to silence it. With the glasses I can still hear the instructions).
Again, when traveling, if I'm staring at a building or something I'm curious about, I can ask the AI to tell me more things about the thing I'm looking at. It's quick and convenient.
Not everyone has the most perverted thoughts in their mind all the time.
It's not an assumption. People started using it for being creepy almost immediately.
https://nypost.com/2026/04/14/business/metas-pervert-glasses...
https://fortune.com/2026/07/28/ray-ban-meta-pervert-glasses-...
https://thenextweb.com/news/instagram-meta-glasses-harassmen...
https://www.wired.com/story/the-rise-of-the-ray-ban-meta-cre...
They do the same with cameras. They even post creep shots. Do you call out loudly everyone owning a smartphone with a camera?
Why not?
Maybe because most (tech) things do make most people's live worse without fail (such as these glasses being available)? I don't see how you can blame people for a very rational reaction here
You come off as naive.
And unless I see proponents of the wholesale ban to foam at people holding smartphones equipped with cameras, I think it's safe to assume they didn't think their opinion carefully and honestly.
“Did I just run into my future wife?” he asked.
She politely let him know she wasn’t interested and moved on with her evening.
She was shocked to find out later that their interaction was recorded and posted on YouTube without her knowledge or permission, using smart glasses which, she said, looked like Meta’s glasses.
Goddamn this wild. Maybe tell people you’re recording and later plan to upload to YouTube?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1963472698/memomind-one...
I do think that people should be legally allowed to make recordings in public, provided they are not harassing anyone. I do not think they are entitled to make those recordings in secret; just have a regulated indicator, like the bluetooth led.
If anyone comes up with a nice set without a camera, I'll consider it.
I don't have a pitch deck ready to go, but I think if constrained to not have a camera, product teams may still come up with a compelling product.
Vuzix Z100 if you can find them anywhere as well...
All of these are green LED displays though, not a full color HUD.
The market is maturing and the hardware is pretty cool. The software situation is pretty dire though; phone OSes don't have a way to use them effectively. Samsung Dex is probably the best experience right now to just use them as a desktop display.
Meta and everyone else with experience knows that, for disruptive technologies, backlash is the stage before adoption. In a sense, the backlash means you're achieving market momentum.
Not all backlashes lead to adoption, but if you want to implement regulations (blur all faces in recordings, no identification, etc.), now is the time to move. At the adoption stage it seems to become normalized and people lose interest, like with other mass surveillance - obviously horrific and dangerous, but few will think about doing anything.
I worry that these will become so discreet that people will be suspicious of anyone wearing any glasses at all, even dumb ones, in a locker room or bathroom.
It just seems like a no-brainer that these things will invite violence upon you once a critical mass of the population understands what they are, and thus people will eventually stop wearing them in public.
Understatement of the year. That would be true maybe 10 years ago, during the Cambridge Analytics era. We are way, way past that point, and a so called tech analyst talking about "preserving the positive sentiment" is truly bizarre
Google Glass looked quite different. Everyone knew how you were wearing it. Wear it long enough and people might have questions, try it out, and learn.
Hiding a camera in glasses doesn't allow for those kinds of interactions, its media going into an unknown bucket. It's also very one sided and to the benefit or decision of one person. If the person being recorded had full access to what was being recorded, maybe that might mean something to some folks.
It's too bad because there's probably cases where the form factor of meta's smart glasses are genuinely helpful for today. Instead of finding and rolling them out there first, by trying to push to the general public, the results can vary.
There's no shortage of folks and devices surreptitiously recording people with devices, or during meetings in person. Once that gets figured out socially these kinds of devices may have better reception.
The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could be covertly recorded at the gym..."
Observation: The same technology could be used to record business deals, job interviews and other negotiations with consent of the counterparty... In fact, both parties in such transactions could record this way (legally and ethically!) if each has consent of the other...
Exactly!
People could be "covertly recorded at the gym" (as the article states!) by other pre-existing recording devices (any other kind of video camera, mounted in the gym or on a gym member's smartphone or other electronic device) -- not just Meta's smart glasses!
In other words, the central issue of the article seems to stem more from consent (more specifically, the lack of consent!) than it does from a specific type of video recording device...
Explain to me how recording device A "when caught" (i.e., the glasses) differ from recording device B (say, a smartphone) "when caught", with respect to "plausible deniability"?
In both cases, do you not have the person responsible for making the recording (because they've been "caught" as you say), regardless of the device used to make it?
If you do, then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?
And if you don't, then isn't the device type used to make the recording in question, irrelevant?
Because you haven't "caught" them?
Also, why do you care so much about plausible deniability as relates to a specific type of device?
Are we talking about legal accountability, or are we talking about something else entirely?
What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?
I suppose that someone could argue that the glasses enable covert, non-consensual recording, and that this behavior might be abused by certain individuals, and that would be a valid argument, but I don't think it could be applied to only Meta's video glasses (i.e., Meta is not the culprit) -- it would have to be applied universally to all companies present and future (including all of the ones in China) who manufacture smart glasses...
If I may suggest...
If the central issue with these smart glasses (made by whatever manufacturer, present or future!) is that they enable covert non-consensual recording, then how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording...
If these glasses were created with big red recording lights that turned on once the device started recording, then that might serve as adequate notification that the counterparty is being recorded, would it not? (You'd rather someone, if they were going to use video recording glasses have them with a big bright red light, then no such light, right?)
So, to recap, I don't understand.
You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals who use covert (or at least, somewhat more covert than a cell phone, let's say, at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones) video recording technologies, such as those found in smartglasses?
Or is there some other issue or issues?
I don't get it; help me out!
You have them.
> then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?
No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device.
> Are we talking about legal accountability
Social and legal.
> What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?
The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go.
> argument.. would have to be applied universally
Yup.
> how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording
Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives.
> You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...?
Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't.
This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others.
> at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones
There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.
I am not sure however, that a global public ban on the use of smart glasses, whether enacted by one (or more) countr(y/ies) law and/or by social conscience (of which Meta's smart glasses are but one in a sea of many that are/will be produced by many manufacturers in many countries, present and future) is the right answer...
The argument you present is not persuasive.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that chainsaws (or any other inanimate tool, neither good, nor evil, merely neutral inanimate tools) are "bad" because occasionally they cut off limbs of people, both in cases of accident and by means of a few isolated cases of bad faith actors using them.
It happens from time to time, that's true...
But it's the exception, it's not the rule.
It's the same argument against self-driving cars...
Do they kill people?
Yes, from time to time they do!
But in such relatively low numbers (fractions of a fraction of a percent) relative to the amount of people using them...
It's the exception, it's not the rule.
The same argument could be applied to elevators...
Do they kill people from time to time?
Sure they do!
But again, it's the exception, it's not the rule.
Your argument is an exception, it's a corner-case, it is not the norm, and it is not how the majority of most lawful, responsible individuals in society act.
It is not how you would act, and it is not how I would act.
It is not how most responsible people would act.
In short, it is not persuasive.
Now, I don't mean to offend you in any way by saying that. Certainly you are free to attempt to persuade as many people as you wish of your viewpoint. You could seek political office and with enough political support, perhaps you could get your viewpoint enacted into Law.
And certainly I and millions of others would respect such Laws if you did get them enacted, even though I currently do not own a pair of smartglasses, produced by Meta or any other company, and I certainly would not take them into a Men's locker room with me if I did own a pair!
But you see, as far as your central argument goes, I can't (and it may be just me!) distinguish it from any other argument of the form
Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors Y (who are exceptions, corner-cases, outliers, not the norm of society) to engage in illegal/immoral/anti-social/unethical/unlawful action Z.
You see I've heard that same argument over and over and over again.
Your argument is an example, a specific case of that pattern.
And that pattern, because I have heard it over and over (and over!) again, is simply not persuasive.
This being said, you're entitled to your viewpoint, and you're entitled to seek any political or social action you feel may help that viewpoint!
I will not stand in your way!
But, at least at the present moment, I individually am not persuaded...
> Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors
I never made this argument. I did, however, give what I thought was a pretty good example of good faith actors behaving badly when there is a plausible excuse for them to do so. (narcissism vs. creepiness)
I don't think you're a human. Whenever someone has misunderstood me this badly in the past, and I've kept talking to them, they turned out to be a bot. I've typed this out for you just in case I'm wrong but I'm not going to respond any further.
My intention was not to misunderstand you personally, only to express the general trend of what I see happening on HN, other message forums, and the mass media in general...
In fairness to you, you make some excellent points, and you long kept going into the discussion when other people would have simply given up and left.
So, to that I say, well done, and thank you for the excellent conversation!
10 Aug 2026 08:35:49 UTC | 'Pervert glasses': Backlash against Meta's smart glasses grows | https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/meta-ai/articles/pervert-glasses-b... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49240972
I can't say that I developed anything to liberate people. To be blunt, almost all the ideas I have come up with over the years have had the purpose of combating or undoing the damage done by the above.
This concept is a panopticon. Especially given the now universal ability to disfigure, disrobe and generally destroy anyone, it's not that it violates YOUR privacy, nor MY privacy (what were you looking at? Sue Ellen Mischkie? [0] ) but that it violates EVERYONE'S privacy. Big Brother doesn't even need telescreens.
>0 results
I have the meta glasses (never wear them outside because of the stigma), and the actual killer feature is the headphones, not the camera/ai stuff. Not the sound quality per se (though it's pretty good and someone else has to be really close to hear leakage on max volume), but it's nice just being able to have a pair of sunglasses on and be able to listen to music and your surroundings while on a walk or cooking without stuff jammed in your ears. And removing the camera stuff will make the glasses look nicer since less tech needed. I know there are brands that specifically do audio only glasses, but "reddit" says they're all middle quality from my research. If anyone has experience, please share.
It needs a "recording" light when it is recording. But creeps will just disable the recording light with e.g. a sticker.
Idea: What if the recording light embeds a little IR signal, and if the camera recording doesn't pick up that signal, it stops working
Edit: I see they tried that already.
Alternatively, maybe the solution will be some sort of device signature embedded into the video data at the hardware level so that videos are traceable to the person that recorded them.
To me the main annoyance is that XR glasses partially rely on cameras to enable things like 6DOF tracking and hand tracking. Having that use conflated with people trying to secretly record others is pretty annoying.
People also walk around with their phones out so often. There's no way for you to know that they aren't recording. E.g. someone could easily be pretending to use their phone when climbing stairs while actually taking upskirt shots with the front camera.
Social media is also already full of people shamelessly recording others in situations where they would not want to be recorded.
Actual perverts have little reason to use these glasses specifically, and as mentioned in my previous post, the cameras have utility other than recording others.
If you're a pervert, you wouldn't want the victim to know you're recording them
If you don't want someone to know you're recording them, you wouldn't wear the famous Recording Glasses
But I don't know, maybe I'm overestimating the average pervert
https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
The downside with the Meta glasses really is this gives "cover" for wearing these kinds of things. If you caught some one with a pocket button camera or the cheap pervert glasses before, well you knew what they were up too. Now they can hide behind being a tech enthusiast or a trend follower or even some kind of fashion thing and wear them right out in the open, allowing nefarious use to be hidden in plain sight.
They can try to 'hide' behind that, but if I see you wearing them, I 100% am assuming the worst case intent. I suspect I am not the only one.
With a GoPro, everyone knows there's a camera. With these, most people won't.
I have become dependent on ambient lofi where I can still hear everyone around me to keep me focused without missing anything happening around me.
Please go away. Most of us were and will be better off with you.
John Q. Public
The only thing that made this strategy fail the regular Meta playbook was the glasses became too popular too quickly, and rather that people slowly sinking into acceptance and complacency, they decided to speak up and shit on the glasses and call out the wearers for being creeps
Stop it.
They should be banned from the market immediately.
Google already found out the hard way that these glasses aren't socially acceptable. Meta will have to learn the same hard lesson. Maybe others too.
People certainly did have a problem with them.