We need to move beyond just banning these glasses - all smart glasses of all kinds - to breaking up these companies. Undo the acquisitions of Insta and Whatsapp - I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.
These devices record video & sound track serve Ads and do Data fusion
What if you took a cam corder to a locker room? People would be upset, that is not allowed. That would not be nice. This is not nice either
What makes these things gross is that it's not obvious when someone is recording.
"Oh no that's sci-fi and decades away", I really don't think so. I think neuralink, and competitors too, will next move on to reading the visual cortex. They already have plans to push data to the visual cortex, to enable the blind to "see", reading in healthy people seems quite doable.
I expect something like this to happen before 2030.
Regardless, I agree for now? Yes. But the future? I don't see it as blockable forever.
There are two ways we decide how severe the punishment for broken laws is. One is to enable just punishment. The other is deterrent. This may fall into "deterrent is the bigger part of the sentence", where people posting private information receive years in jail as a result.
There is a little bit of a conversation about this here:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii...
And the above certainly covers Meta glasses too.
I think it won't be long before it's the posting of non-consensual imagery that is so criminal, that few will do so. For years in Quebec, sharing of images captured in public isn't really legit. You control "images of yourself", regardless of where they are taken, public places or not:
https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-pho...
And they're so worried about problems with image sharing, they've almost automated the process to deal with it:
https://www.quebec.ca/en/justice-and-civil-status/support-vi...
So this is already being criminalized in a lot of places.
It's increasingly necessary not to allow guests to bring their devices into your house or establishment. Somebody should go into business doing courtesy phones, where you can switch your sim/esim at the door to a dumbphone owned by the business.
When it comes to smart glasses, if they're prescription you had better have spares or you're going to be blind.
Canada's censorship solutions are no solution; you can't stop people from doing things by cracking down on civil liberties, people will just ignore you and do it anyway. Then you're stuck chasing anonymity, now your entire society is totalitarian and everything is rooted. In order to fight the totalitarian surveillance and tracking instituted because you wouldn't tell some pervert to take his robot glasses off, the electorate makes MechaHitler your PM, and it's now in control of your surveillance system.
It would be very funny if Skynet took over because people elected it, like Hitler did.
The US has a crazier takedown regime, letting companies do this. At least in Canada it goes through a court, it's about your personal likeness, and you can contest it.
Please watch this ad to enable 5 minutes of premium color vision!
> I expect something like this to happen before 2030.
I think 2030 is too early for that, medical tech is slower than most people expect. What may happen by then is (more) retinal implants connected to external cameras, as the early tests of that kind of thing are now well into the past and early models were actually authorised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis
The non-medical surveillance risk is higher. The smallest camera (as of 6 years ago) was already small enough to be easily missed amongst makeup sparkles if you were so inclined: https://originalpricing.com/ov6948-medical-camera-sensor/
Low resolution? Sure. Expensive, too. But I can easily see this being embedded in someone's nail lacquer, or eyelashes.
There have been hidden cameras of various kinds for a lot longer than that, hidden in buttons etc.
Between this and how easy it is to use AI to fake a picture of anyone you choose, anywhere you choose, doing anything you choose… I have absolutely no idea what will happen to consensus reality and shared social norms next year, let alone by 2030.
Some yahoo you don't know, posting a video of <thing happening> is useless without some degree of trust. So whether an established celeb on Youtube or actual media outlets, centralized reporting is going to become more of a thing.
When I was a kid, pre-internet, pre-camera, 'rumours' could be devastating, and were often wildly made up. Yet there was always this category of people who simple could not get through their head, that simply because someone hears something, it isn't therefore true.
This category of people still exists. And I think they'll be most hit by this.
> Take control of your privacy with this easy-to-use LED and Camera Blocker
> Designed for users who value discretion, this accessory covers the video recording LED and optionally blocks the front-facing camera — perfect for content creators, streamers, or anyone in sensitive environments.
There is two parts, one to block the LED, and an option to al part to block the camera.
https://9to5google.com/2026/07/07/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses...
https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
The $17b settlement they just agreed to said as much.
Meta employees themselves couldn't tell if he was recording!
Glasses are passively recording. Recording with a phone is active (for the most part). You need to take it out and point it at what you are recording...
Every gym I've been to is full of people with phones out in the locker room, from cheap chain gyms to the nicer athletic club I currently go to. My experience is much closer to GP.
> Glasses are passively recording
All the smart glasses I know of have a light on when recording. My phone does not and can be much more discreet (subject to the fact that everyone has a phone out already).
I agree that if a location is actively banning phone use patrons should absolutely also be asked to take off smart glasses.
How long until someone differentiates themselves on the market by not having the light?
For public spaces, at least where I am, there really isn't a legal expectation of privacy. I couldn't tell if someone was watching YouTube or filming me with their phone and I probably don't have any recourse anyway.
It's just that in the past, these were sold by janky companies selling them as spy/hidden cameras, not massive multinational data brokers like Meta.
that light can be easily disabled
https://www.pcmag.com/news/modders-can-remove-the-recording-...
That's probably the best solution, deal with the functionality, not the device type.
Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
I don't think OP is trying to punish investors. I think they are saying the overall damage of letting these companies continue the current trend will be worse than the cost of unwinding it now.
I'm an advocate of reformed legislation to enable this.
Egregious example:
The problem isn't the profit. The problem is the lack of accountability.
As much as you might like to defend the wealthy because the only thing you care about is money, regardless of the human cost, doesn't mean that we can't use the law and the government to limit the harm being done to humans.
I know what you are going to say. "Fuck people! I only worship money!" but I think you need to look beyond just the financial aspects of this situation.
Simple as that
What a great way to flip a discussion on privacy. I'm so happy for your investments. I have investments, too. That didn't stop me from telling our financial advisor that I didn't want shares in specific evil companies, regardless of their profitability. Maybe that's because I have enough money to be selective about it, which apparently will earn your respect.
There are also potential good uses for this tech. As someone who can't remember anyone's name worth crap, I can't wait for smart glasses with facial recognition and a name tag that hovers over everyone. I'm sure there will be great benefit in industry, giving workers heads up displays of all manner of important information.
Just like any new technology, there is equal potential for good and bad.
Cars are defacto illegal to operate in public. You must have a license to drive one.
You can’t yell fire to scare people.
You can’t buy a gun without some kind of check, or at all depending on location.
Civilians can’t operate jet engines with a variable nozzle size.
I cannot find any support for that. Variable nozzles are fairly rare (but not non-existent) on non-afterburning engines, and afterburning engines are fairly rare themselves (and sometimes restricted as part of demilitarization of a former military airframe), but both variable nozzles and afterburners are entirely legal for a civilian to own and operate.
> You can’t buy a gun without some kind of check
That comes with a caveat -- this only applies to retail sales. Over half of States do allow private purchases with no background check.
What stops you from using a notepad? I do not want my face uploaded to Facebook.
A local only face recognizer with consent of the face owners would be pretty useful for me. Although it would require a lot of 'hey, I'm bad at faces and names, do you mind if I take a picture so baby skynet can help me out?'
The simple solution is that you live with the small amount of awkwardness this generates.
And if all fails, a "What up DUDE!" always works well too.
Now if you have a brain issue or something, I understand. But as a normal, healthy person, if we aren't making even the smallest effort to remember names, even the non-important ones, then we are more than likely the problem hah!
(Networked) surveillance cameras are just as problematic, but people don't notice them. Any ban should affect them too. I don't want to build a world where corporations and governments film and surveil us in public (or privately-owned public spaces, like malls, parking lots, etc.), but we're forbidden from doing the same.
"I have no empathy for the two-thirds of Americans who will lose their personal savings that they need to retire" really undermines your case.
Edit: thoughtful tradeoffs against the stock market are reasonable. "I don't care" is not a carefully weighed tradeoff
On a parallel, can't we criticize any decision reducing the market cap of companies as an attack on the retirement portfolios? Say, if we required connected glasses to display a red light of more than x lumens when recording, would that be ok, even if it decreased Meta's market cap?
Any decision that results in a long term net loss across the entire public economy? Yes.
That's something that hurts a lot of people and that hurt should be carefully weighed against whatever the assumed benefit is. Sometimes that's worth it, sometimes it's not
But it's never OK to just hand wave with "well I don't care about that class of people so screw them"
And let's not move the goalposts. OPs proposal was a corporate breakup of massive scale, not a minimum lumens requirement.
At some point, similar to the camera/face recognition debate, it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.
That's...I'm not even sure how to respond to that. It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect. The scale would be historic.
> it's about a choice of society that we want to live in. I think that's an interesting debate.
I fully agree with you! OP apparently doesn't, as he stated he does not care about half of the voices in that debate. That's what I'm taking issue with, not the proposal to break up Meta, which is, as you said, worth a debate!
Like it did with Ma Bell (the effective telephone monopoly)? No. I'm pretty sure it would have the direct opposite (open frontier) effect. The direct steps to break up a company are well telegraphed to the market.
The effect on economy I'm talking about is a functional one, ads and slop will continue to be served on your social network of choice. Second order like "bad vibes" will be forgotten in a month, a quarter at max and then hedge fund managers will move to something else.
> As of 2022, about half of households with a worker age 55 and older had no retirement savings, and 32% had no retirement savings or a defined benefit plan.
The scaremongering about equity values and your average person’s holdings and exposure is not grounded in facts and reality. It’s simply scaremongering.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49357337 (citations)
Also "lose their personal savings" is a hyperbolic bad faith argument. If anyone's entire net worth is put into Meta stock, they get whats coming. Second, 93% of the stock market is owned by 10% of the population. The average American has more to gain from holding companies accountable than letting them rape and pillage our society so the richest people can have even more money.
Yikes. I thought this was America.
Which is a great mindset if you want to ignore new information and avoid improving the status quo.
When we do, it can be pretty effective.
I just wish we did so more frequently, and, more importantly, that the consumer welfare principle hadn't emerged as the prevalent antitrust standard.