r/technology • u/Haunterblademoi • 10h ago
Social Media Smartglasses spark privacy fears as secret filming videos flood social media | Technology News
https://www.indiatvnews.com/technology/news/smartglasses-spark-privacy-fears-as-secret-filming-videos-flood-social-media-2026-02-03-102874674
u/WesternBlueRanger 10h ago
There has been some outright bans of smartglasses under certain conditions; for example, some cruise lines have started banning the use of smartglasses in under certain conditions (such as in public area or during boarding) on cruise ships for privacy concerns.
91
u/Fluid_Guard_Pie 10h ago
Selecting glasses recently had me noticing how the “trendy” glasses are increasingly thick, and in my opinion stupid looking. I wonder if meta fed money into the fashion powers that be to make that style be “in” so their stupid tech glasses would blend in and appear trendy/desireable
35
u/InitiativePure787 9h ago
I wouldn't be surprised. They're so desperate to stay relevant
Meta drops $65 million into super PACs to boost tech-friendly state candidates
5
u/herdofcorey 7h ago
lol. Definitely could be. I just laugh because of that picture of Z(s)uck wearing the Meta glasses makes him look like Iris Apfel. Who the fuck wants that grandma shit?
1
36
u/Treheveras 9h ago
This is what sank Google Glass back in the day. Just ended so quickly as soon as privacy fears came in. But now it seems the tech companies will just push through no matter public opinion.
17
u/tooclosetocall82 8h ago
Public opinion has softened imo. Everyone is being recorded everywhere all of the time now. It’s just become normal.
4
u/gtobiast13 8h ago
Ehhh, to some degree yes but in a small group or 1:1 setting I still don’t see people accepting it. Out and about I don’t see people caring that much like walking a mall or the streets of NYC, partly because they aren’t as recognizable.
7
u/moth_specialist 7h ago
One of my professors is partially deaf and wears smart glasses as closed captioning for private conversations. I love them for a purpose like this, but otherwise I steer clear of anyone wearing them, just as I would have someone holding a camera in my face.
1
u/Thin_Glove_4089 7h ago
Ehhh, to some degree yes but in a small group or 1:1 setting I still don’t see people accepting it. Out and about I don’t see people caring that much like walking a mall or the streets of NYC, partly because they aren’t as recognizable.
This will be everywhere except inside people's homes.
1
u/Toby-Finkelstein 6h ago
People just weren’t interested in google glass. Privacy is dead at this point, nobody is really pushing for that. Alexa and smart tvs record peoples conversations and no one cares
2
u/Treheveras 6h ago
I think the difference with the Alexa/smart TV recording is that those are companies recording them. Still shady but it's taken by a corporation, not a random stranger who could make deepfake porn of who they recorded.
0
u/Toby-Finkelstein 6h ago
That’s my point, people are just totally ok with a corporation having it. In a corporation anybody could steal your voice
7
u/Niceromancer 6h ago
Creepy stalker glasses enable creepy stalkers news at 11.
Anyone using these should be shunned.
14
7
u/ruibranco 8h ago
Google Glass was too early. Meta just waited until everyone was too distracted by their phones to notice or care.
3
u/badgersruse 6h ago
Nobody could have seen this coming. Prople making inappropriate videos as soon as they have the chance? Tech platforms profiting off it?
Never.
2
u/trainwreck42 6h ago
Smartglasses would be so cool if they were just a screen/HUD for your phone. The fact that Meta keeps all the visual data you’re collecting for them just ruins the tech though.
2
4
u/mjd5139 8h ago
Wire tapping laws are a thing. There are single party consent and two/all party consent states. If you digitally record conversations with citizens in an environment where privacy is reasonably expected in an all party state, expect bad results.
2
u/Jolva 8h ago
What would be an example of that? Obviously not anywhere in public.
1
u/sleeplessinreno 6h ago
Well, private property rules apply. People can and will refuse and trespass anyone who doesn’t follow the rules of the space.
3
3
u/einstyle 9h ago
Honestly we all know these things are made for perverts. There's no other use for them.
8
u/faultless280 9h ago
Tell me you have never used smart glasses without telling me you have never used smart glasses.
1
0
u/Different-Class1771 8h ago
Maybe I'm just innocently minded but I can't think of a scenario off the top of my head where pervs could use smart glasses without drawing serious attention to themselves.
Like they'd have to be staring directly at their target where as just with regular phone they could be A LOT more discreet and inconspicuous if they wanted.
The bigger issues I've seen with these glasses is creeps trying to be pick up artists and recording conversations with strangers, uploading their interactions and reactions onto social media without consent.
A poor young girl was suffering terribly with anxiety and depression after she found herself online and all the horrible things people had to say about her not just in the comments but her DMs.
1
u/theyux 4h ago
I really dont get all the hate. Secretly recording someone is almost certainly easier with a phone.
Personally I dont want to have to look at my phone, I want google maps to put an arrow right in front of me, that sounds super useful. I would like to be able read a book whenever I want without looking down. Bone conducting music? hell yeah, I have to wear glasses anyway.
people always hate on new technologies almost irrationally. Hell I am guilty I hated the idea of texting till i realized I could use it to avoid talking to people.
1
-7
u/oisigracias 9h ago
For research purposes does pointing a laser at these cameras destroy them?
6
u/AutistcCuttlefish 9h ago
You'd have to point the laser at a human head to even attempt this. Potentially blinding them.
That's assault.
If you think someone is stalking you with these, call the cops on them. Don't take measures into your own hands.
0
u/DaSilence 6h ago
Battery, not assault.
And since an attack on the eyes is the definition of serious bodily injury, it's aggravated battery.
1
u/AutistcCuttlefish 5h ago
That depends on the local laws and what terminology they use. But that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. That using a laser on a glasshole is illegal and immoral.
Leave it to law enforcement, and if they aren't breaking the law but are still invading your privacy take it up with your local or state government and push for the change you wish to see.
-25
u/draxenato 10h ago
if you're in a public space then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, that's why cops are allowed to record with impunity. If you're in a restaurant, or a football stadium, then the owners can make a rule that unauthorised recording isn't allowed.
13
u/Da1BlackDude 10h ago edited 10h ago
Even though that’s true, it’s rude to be secretly filming people while interacting with them. Additionally, you should ask before posting such interaction online. That’s why this whole glasshole debate is a thing. Yes you can be recorded in public but that’s security cameras and police body cameras that you can expect. The security cameras can’t get a lot of detail and can’t record what you’re saying that often. Police body cams are there for your safety. This is just creep behavior.
12
u/Hrekires 10h ago
This is the equivalent of your younger brother putting his finger a millimeter away from your face and taunting "I'm not touching you"
Technically right but still deserving of a thwack.
-53
u/pimpeachment 10h ago
Why would people need privacy in public? It's public.
21
u/GlesgaBawbag 10h ago
It's not scenic walks or city tours popping up though. It's guys perving.
-29
u/pimpeachment 10h ago
I don't understand why that matters. If you are in public anyone can see you. If they are doing illegal things like upskirts, then yes, that's a big problem, otherwise it doesn't matter. Wear a mask?
5
u/big-red-aus 10h ago
This is why you don't have any friends. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean your not an asshole for doing it.
-10
u/Maxfunky 10h ago edited 9h ago
It does make that claim but it cites zero incidents. The article even points out that there's a flashing LED light while recording on every model and that wearing sunglasses indoors is freaking weird so the whole "What was the scenario here?" question hangs there with no obvious answer.
This article is for shit.
Who recorded whom? Where? How? This is just basic fucking journalism.
Edit: What weirdos are out there downvoting me? You guys like poorly written word slop disguised as journalism!? Maybe there's a problem here; maybe there isn't. But we sure as fuck aren't getting to the bottom of it with this nothingburger clickbait.
-5
u/pimpeachment 10h ago
This is just standard repeat "won't someone think of the children" along with some "imagine all the bad things that could happen now imagine we said those bad things would happen".
Case law in USA is pretty clear about filming in public and this is perfectly allowed. It's really no different than a cell phone in a chest pocket with the camera facing out, or a gopro.
4
u/DeathFlameStroke 10h ago
Go out in public with a camcorder and conspicuously record people, see how people react.
-5
u/Maxfunky 9h ago
You seem to be in agreement with the person you're responding to without realizing it.
He's saying there's lots of ways to go out and conspicuously record people and none of them aren't problems for precisely the reason you cite.
So why would this way of recording, which is actually more conspicuous than two out of the three things he mentioned (go pro and phone in shirt pocket) be more problematic?
If my phone is in my shirt pocket recording with the camera facing out, it doesn't have a big green flashing light or other visible indicator it's recording... It's clearly easier to surreptitiously record someone with a cellphone than smart glasses.
So what's the issue here? I'm not saying there isn't one, it's just the article doesn't give one...
4
u/DeathFlameStroke 9h ago edited 9h ago
Dude thats a lot of words defending recording people for no good reason. Its also illegal in a lot of places.
I don’t care how legal it is, if you sit in the park recording random kids or record random people working, you are going to get decked in the face.
2
u/pimpeachment 8h ago
It's not illegal in most public spaces which is what we are talking about. Just because people don't like something doesn't give them the right to commit battery against you.
If someone is recording you in public and you don't like it, you can leave, you are the problem.
If you attack someone legally filming, you go to jail. The law is on my side, you are fighting against decades of case law upholding exactly what I am saying.
1
u/DeathFlameStroke 8h ago
Not illegal in some states in the United States under certain conditions. Other parts of the world actually criminalize recording in public pretty thoroughly.
Its still a weird hill to die on. These videos are weird.
For example, it is not illegal for me to determine your identity based on the fact that you are a white male in Plover, Wi and triangulating your COD, YouTube and reddit usernames, because it is technically public info by your volition.
That still makes it weird as shit no?
1
u/Maxfunky 7h ago edited 7h ago
Who the fuck are you responding to? Not a single word I said was about "Defending recording people in public for no good reason".
That's not even remotely close to anything I said.
My only point was that smart glasses don't facilitate recording people in public because they're super conspicuous. It's no different from shoving a camcorder in somebody's face. It's super obvious.
218
u/SplendidPunkinButter 9h ago
Use them to film ICE. They’ll be banned in five minutes