Another win for privacy <3
Dutch retailer pulls Meta glasses as hundreds of women reportedly filmed
Dutch retailer pulls Meta glasses as hundreds of women reportedly filmed
![[image] Dutch retailer pulls Meta glasses as hundreds of women reportedly filmed](https://europe.pub/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.cybernews.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatured-big%2F2026%2F07%2FRaybamAIglasses.jpg)
Linked article
cybernews.com ↗
Fedigest
Fedigest
Linked article
cybernews.com ↗
Dutch retailer pulls Meta glasses as hundreds of women reportedly filmed
Another win for privacy <3
Ray ban should get a lot more trouble for this. They are accepting that meta uses their design (maybe they did even design the whole chassis for the components). Now you can blend in when wearing one of those cams.
These never needed to exist
There are few legitimate use cases for smart glasses with cameras tho - it’s very helpful for visually impaired people. Really sad too see such things overshadowed by sea of perverts.
That's technology as a whole.
Seriously. I'm working as a substitute teacher right now. It would be amazing if I could pop on a pair of smart glasses and have some limited augmented reality capabilities. I would love to look across a classroom and see the names of all the students floating about their head. Maybe with some key notes (like IEP restrictions, notes from the teacher, etc.)
But I've never seen this actually implemented by any of the companies pushing these.
So this would work with facial recognition and sharing the complete school database with the manufacturer, in this case meta, including attendance and any learning disabilities?
It does sound convenient but the privacy trade-off is never worth it imo. None of these companies seem to be developing something that runs locally, they’re all about being “connected”.
See and I go the other way. Assuming everything is up front this would be amazing for a teacher based on how OP explained it.
That said, to your point, none of this would even be a discussion if we paid teachers properly and staffed schools adequately.
We are moaning about a technical solution to a problem that already has a solution that has been solved for decades but collectively we choose to ignore that solution because education is a cost centre.
I'll leave the classic Matt Damon bitching about underpaid teachers.
https://youtube.com/shorts/nvVYPZpjzno
When I'd see that stuff in scifi years ago I thought it was cool, but also wondered how secure it actually would be to have electronics that is capable of seeing what you see all the time.
And of course that answered in SciFi with that stuff getting hacked from time to time.
Did they actually launch them with helpful technology in that vein? That is news to me!
I mean, those are a thing that can describe one’s surroundings and objects around them or assist in handling certain objects. And for people with impaired hearing - subtitles for what people around say can be displayed.
These are life changing technologies for some disabled people, but alas - we’ve got the least privacy-concerned company to spearhead the progress in this regard.
Well, on the bright side, that sounds like something that could be preserved into a device that makes it a lot more obvious when it's working, or without the recording features at all. And hopefully we get stuff like that and soon!
On the flip side with this being a device that is more in the realm of persistent audio and visual recording I can't help but think this type of wearable will lead to every interaction being recorded and transcribed. And sounds like some suped Big Brother network if it becomes ubiquitous of every single person being a camera.
TIL that user cm0002 was banned.
What? LMAO
They need to make it a big giant bright flashing light for recording like some old video cameras had on them.
The creeps will just find a way to remove it.
But that's illegal
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.
I finally got to handle a demo pair at Best Buy a few weeks back. They feel cheap and creaky. No one mentions this.
Perv-vision!
you're not my perv visor!
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
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.
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.
I'm sure news orgs don't have to disclose that every time they interview someone in the streets.
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.
It doesn't matter in public. First amendment protects it.
they don't care if men are filmed?
You may not be aware of this or do it intentionally but responding “what about the men” when the topic focuses on “women” is a common frustration online.
The reverse scenario, where the focus is men rarely gets a comment “how about women”
You’re technically not wrong though, everyone could be affected and i do expect journalistic pieces to be inform more broadly about an issue, but the issue does seem to disproportionally affect people who appear to be women and its also fair to note this difference.
I am sure there is no ill will on your part but i have seen online “fights” break out over this pattern. At first it confused me but once you understand it, you notice it everytime even when the post is by and for women and posted on a women focused community it will get a comment like this.
There are enough articled and discussions calling out the meta privacy issue in a non gendered way. The few adressing women are not harming any man.
I wanted to take a moment to applaud your reasoned and articulate response. tldr : well said.
why does it have to be gendered?
Having done a few clicks to look into why this specific article is gendered.
Cybernews is reporting an article By NL times
The article by NL times was already gendered.
NL Times has wrote other non gendered articles on this issue but this article was prompted by a lawsuit being prepared by Offlimits
Offlimits is an organization that combats sexual abuse.
The context of this Lawsuit is the discovery of telegram and other channels for the distribution of “creepshots”, often sexually pictures taken from compromising angles.
The victims of these creepshots are almost always women.
Its similar to catcalling. It does happen to both genders but if it happens to men its a noticeable rare event. By the time a women reaches adulthood its another tuesday.
I pray that I can one day be as measured as you were in this comment.
Men don't get filmed the same way, peabrain
Yeah, it's no different from "someone think of the kids".
They are making one with just a microphone with audio finger printing. Not really a victory. Meta still exist.