Thread

ZuckOff Know when a camera is in the room

607 points · 6 comments · Bluestein

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

voidUpdate · 1789988266 · focus · HN ↗
*knows when a pair of camera glasses are in the room
bdavbdav · 1789988360 · focus · HN ↗
This is fantastic.
1. wafflez · 1790002963 · focus · HN ↗
  This is slop.
captn3m0 · 1789988735 · focus · HN ↗
Does it beep louder as the BT signal strength changes and the camera comes closer?
1. Aboutplants · 1789989518 · focus · HN ↗
  Bring along a small Bluetooth speaker and call out pervs in public!
  1. amelius · 1789990446 · focus · HN ↗
    Wait, doesn't it beep for smartphone cameras too?
    captn3m0 · 1790029011 · focus · HN ↗
    They could, by incorporating recent research: <a href="https://www.core77.com/posts/145408/KAIST-Develops-a-Way-to-Detect-Hidden-Cameras-Using-Your-Smartphone" rel="nofollow">https://www.core77.com/posts/145408/KAIST-Develops-a-Way-to-...
  2. qwerpy · 1790004454 · focus · HN ↗
    lol yes I would love to see a single male come to my neighborhood playground and “call me out” as I take videos of my kids playing.
KellyCriterion · 1789989013 · focus · HN ↗
It says:
> Flags camera glasses by their manufacturer signature <
How is this guaranteed to be not spoofed?
1. dubcanada · 1789989126 · focus · HN ↗
  Where does it say that is guaranteed? Nobody can guarantee that.
2. wongarsu · 1789989960 · focus · HN ↗
  Anyone can get a $5 bluetooth-capable ESP32 and set its bluetooth mac to one in the range used by smart glasses. Not sure why you'd do that though.
  The other direction is trickier. You'd have to modify the firmware of the smart glasses to set a different mac, or at least gain arbitrary code execution with hardware access on the glasses. That's well beyond what the average smart glass user will do
  And at that point, it'd be mostly about the heads-up display anyways. Somebody who is determined to record you without your knowledge has far easier paths available to them. Just get one of those lighters or ear-rings or car key fobs with built-in camera
3. IAmBroom · 1789995560 · focus · HN ↗
  Are you really worried you might be filmed by an off-brand pair of glasses, instead of a genuine Meta pair?
ldes · 1789989056 · focus · HN ↗
Reading this inspired me that it would be nice if there were a do-not-film-me standard: your mobile phone sends out a do-not-film-me request with a (rotating) hash of your facial biometrics via Bluetooth. All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings.
Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party.
1. gjs278 · 1789989184 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
2. kingkongjaffa · 1789989268 · focus · HN ↗
  These are social problems not technology problems.
  We want a society that does not need these workarounds.
  1. airstrike · 1789989294 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. pasc1878 · 1789989412 · focus · HN ↗
    Which won't happen as criminals will never want themselves filmed and they are the ones you want to film to make society better and protect yourself.
    rawling · 1789989679 · focus · HN ↗
    Haven't you got that the wrong way around?
    If we have to come up with a technological solution to grant anonymity when people are filming, criminals can use it.
    If we as a society don't go around filming everyone all the time, we don't need that technical solution available, so we can film the criminals when they are doing something criminal.
  3. w4yai · 1789989482 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't trust humans to follow the rules. They break rules all the time. Look at the HN community.
    rpastuszak · 1789989687 · focus · HN ↗
    Humans adapt and will always break the rules, but that’s not something that can be solved with tech. Think: prohibition vs public anti smoking campaigns/healthcare support/and then increasing prices
  4. DrScientist · 1789989828 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed.
    The tricky part is that social peer pressure requires a lack of anonymity - not just in terms of detecting whether people are recording without consent at the time - but also the posting of content online.
    Naming and shaming requires names.
  5. ldes · 1789989856 · focus · HN ↗
    The lines blur between actively taking photos and passively recording for augmented reality, AI assistance, etc. People might not be aware that they record. This standard would also be useful to extend to robots. For example if you visit friends who have a roomba [1].
    [1] <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-irobot-robot-vacuums-artificial-intelligence-training-data-privacy/amp/" rel="nofollow">https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-i...
3. soapdog · 1789989418 · focus · HN ↗
  > All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings.
  that requires too much goodwill and effort from the makers of such devices. They know their audience wouldn't want that. They don't give a shit about what people being filmed think.
  1. rpastuszak · 1789989523 · focus · HN ↗
    Culture/social pressures work better than purely technical solutions
  2. TeMPOraL · 1789992495 · focus · HN ↗
    Nor should they.
    Think about it some more. It's all fun and games, until same technology is used against you. There was literally a Black Mirror episode about this very thing.
    cwnyth · 1789995338 · focus · HN ↗
    Some people are far too eager to build the Torment Nexus.
  3. encom · 1790003146 · focus · HN ↗
    There are just two makers of devices, Google and Apple, both proprietary and user hostile and they'll do anything the government tells them. Remember how quickly they implemented that covid tracking bullshit? Yeah.
4. lbreakjai · 1789989423 · focus · HN ↗
  Why do we need a standard for something that should socially be the norm?
  1. physicallyIllfr · 1789989733 · focus · HN ↗
    Wasn't there a "standard" that phones in south kora had to make a shutter noise when you took a picture because they had such a huge problem with men doing up the skirt photos of strangers?
    Not sure why you think social norms are positive. Negative amoral behaviors can become norms. I'd argue the west has tons of amoral behavior that is normalized.
    Avicebron · 1789990443 · focus · HN ↗
    Not sure about the noise, but Japan did something likr it with a constant light when the device was recording. I believe it was combatting the same kind of issues though.
    mrlonglong · 1789990552 · focus · HN ↗
    This. Absolutely this.
    Explains a lot about why people vote for racist and right wing parties.
    kdjdkcneixj · 1789994473 · focus · HN ↗
    > and right wind parties
    Now I get the racists, but you, quite literally, just boiled down all politics to: left wing parties = good; right wind parties = bad;
    And, honestly, that’s gotta be the single most childish and naive take anyone could ever make about politics.
    It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad that you think you’re “fighting big tech” when this is probably the most “I’m a social media junkie” take ever.
    mrlonglong · 1789995530 · focus · HN ↗
    Zzzz
    kdjdkcneixj · 1789995878 · focus · HN ↗
    What in the… what? Who said anything about Trump?
    Dude. Seriously. I mean this in the least snarky and rude way possible: try to get off social media.
    mrlonglong · 1789996478 · focus · HN ↗
    No.
    kdjdkcneixj · 1789997165 · focus · HN ↗
    Figures.
    mrlonglong · 1789998350 · focus · HN ↗
    You created an identity only an hour ago. Did you just do this to tick me off on this?
    pocksuppet · 1789997829 · focus · HN ↗
    It's good to a first-order approximation. Haven't seen many cases where it fails. You do get right-wing parties pretending to be left-wing (never the reverse) though, like the German one that called itself "worker's socialist"
    idjcjdjdjskdj · 1789999550 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's good to a first-order approximation.
    It… really is not.
    People thinking in such binary terms (good vs evil) is exactly how we get to where we are today.
    Nothing is as black and white as it seems to be. Especially politics.
    pocksuppet · 1790044020 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't refute someone by just saying "nuh uh"
    lbreakjai · 1789998920 · focus · HN ↗
    Things happening does not mean it a social norm. It was never acceptable to take underskirt pictures in Japan. They also did not put the onus on women to wear special camera-disabling underwear.
    Likewise, it's not acceptable to shove a camera to everyone's face, and it shouldn't be on people to opt-out of it.
  2. bch · 1789989808 · focus · HN ↗
    Because some people would still smoke in restaurants and airplanes if left to their own devices.
  3. bell-cot · 1789989860 · focus · HN ↗
    Why do we need laws against stealing bikes?
    (Yes, example chosen for its reputation for indifferent enforcement.)
    lbreakjai · 1789998433 · focus · HN ↗
    You're getting this wrong. We don't need a standard to signal you don't want your bike to be stolen. The social expectation is that a bike can't be taken.
    What the parent comment is suggesting is to invert the honus. "I can film you by default, unless you tell me not to".
  4. tifik · 1789989940 · focus · HN ↗
    Technical and legal norms are implementation of social norms. “obviously everybody knows that you are supposed to do it that way” doesnt hold up well at court.
    lbreakjai · 1789998556 · focus · HN ↗
    There already are privacy laws that govern what can be filmed where. Why do we need a standard to pretty please ask some glasshole to respect the law if it's not too much of an inconvenience?
5. peri-cl · 1789989491 · focus · HN ↗
  Police unions would love for cameras to standardize on that.
  There was an article on HN that one city's police force, when there were protests going on, took to playing Disney songs from loudspeakers; so that any recording of their interactions would be impossible to publish on any significant internet platform (or at least, the audio would be muted, by IP protection filters).
  1. the_other · 1789989713 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s an admission of guilt by the police, right there. If you have nothing to hide… etc.
    UqWBcuFx6NV4r · 1789990319 · focus · HN ↗
    “We’ve got ‘em now!”. This’ll be police brutality’s great undoing.
  2. nathanaldensr · 1789990001 · focus · HN ↗
    Wouldn't that constitute a public performance of copyrighted material? The police themselves could be DMCAed. Haha
    zdragnar · 1789991593 · focus · HN ↗
    Not DMCA, but yes, that would definitely open them to a lawsuit for unlicensed performance.
    vincnetas · 1789991864 · focus · HN ↗
    its basically equivalent of them punching you in the face and running away. Yeah you're right and they're wrong, but what would you do about that and your nose is bleeding. Nasty tactics.
    nkrisc · 1789993190 · focus · HN ↗
    It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or illegal if they know nothing will happen to them. The rule of law is dying because it’s becoming only selectively enforced.
    pocksuppet · 1789997611 · focus · HN ↗
    has died
  3. DrScientist · 1789990005 · focus · HN ↗
    Did the police have the appropriate license to play those disney songs in a public space?
    cucumber3732842 · 1789990709 · focus · HN ↗
    I bet Disney's lawyers can squeeze a lot more money out of municipalities for playing the music publicly in the first place than they can out of random citizens who are uploading to Youtube.
    victorbjorklund · 1789990951 · focus · HN ↗
    Im guessing the intention wasn’t that Disney would actually sue them in court but just getting it blocked automatically in YouTube, etc
    cucumber3732842 · 1789994298 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course that was the point. But malicious broadcast of copyrighted material to trigger automated enforcement systems sounds pretty far from "fair use" to me. Say nothing of the bad publicity when some video is just so bad it hits the news and now your IP is the soundtrack to a cop beatdown.
    When you look at it from a legal "use it or lose it" and corporate risk perspective it's quite surprising that Disney didn't even sent cease and desists.
    DrammBA · 1789997452 · focus · HN ↗
    Disney seems to be taking a very hands-off approach when it comes to government use, so I doubt they'll do anything about this police case.
    pocksuppet · 1789997595 · focus · HN ↗
    Copyright isn't "use it or lose it"
    victorbjorklund · 1790025650 · focus · HN ↗
    Pretty sure Disney can still go after real targets even if they don’t go after every children’s at home party that showed a Disney movie.
  4. amelius · 1789990073 · focus · HN ↗
    Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?
    Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc.
    UqWBcuFx6NV4r · 1789990281 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re right. Tech companies will surprise us all and suddenly start obeying the DMCA to the letter instead of just taking the shortcut of “rights holders upload content, it’s fingerprinted, user content that matches fingerprint is taken down”. Then, we’ll link arms and sing kumbaya.
    0x10ca1h0st · 1789990744 · focus · HN ↗
    Just to note, you can keep the data on French servers as they are a Offshore/DMCA Ignore country.
    someonebaggy · 1789992907 · focus · HN ↗
    You can. YouTube doesn't. Instagram doesn't. Facebook doesn't.
    0x10ca1h0st · 1790089254 · focus · HN ↗
    When watching local network flows, almost all Facebook traffic originates from Ireland.
    someonebaggy · 1790180757 · focus · HN ↗
    That's just their most local reverse proxy.
    peri-cl · 1789990394 · focus · HN ↗
    > "Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?"
    There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive.
    GJim · 1789994398 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything.
    Ahem...
    In the UK/EU Let me introduce you to article 22 of the GDPR
    The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
    i.e. If subjected to an algorithm making decisions, you have an automatic right of appeal to a _human_.
    <a href="https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/" rel="nofollow">https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
    You need to adopt a sensible data protection law if you don't want to be exploited.
    ryandrake · 1790004952 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh no! It's against the law. That'll definitely stop companies from doing it with impunity.
    GJim · 1790007125 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. It will.
    Though presumably you would prefer the alternative; that such companies are unrestrained in what they may do and the population at large must simply bend over and grab their ankles with both hands?
    ryandrake · 1790009525 · focus · HN ↗
    Nope, I don't want that at all. What I want is a law with actual enforcement behind it and penalties that actually deter bad actors. You don't just write a law and then stop there declaring job done.
    mitchdoogle · 1790107296 · focus · HN ↗
    GDPR penalties DO deter bad actors. It's so effective that many American companies without a European presence at all take actions
    peri-cl · 1790005757 · focus · HN ↗
    If you look into it more carefully, you'll find this doesn't apply to social media moderation, but only more consequential AI-biased decisions.
    (In the excerpt you quoted: "legal effects" / or "significantly affects").
    simiones · 1789990409 · focus · HN ↗
    Theoretically, yes, absolutely. Practically, no, they would be taken down by automatic filters and you'd have to be willing to face Disney's lawyers to try to get them reinstated.
    queenkjuul · 1789990529 · focus · HN ↗
    > Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?
    This has never once prevented a DMCA notice from being issued, and I'm sure you can guess how easy it is to get a person at YouTube to review your appeal
6. eunos · 1789989894 · focus · HN ↗
  > hash of your facial biometrics via Bluetooth
  Sounds like a swift way to be included in "Need constant observation" list. Or we can even build a special surveillance for such folks along with plausible Parallel construction scenario constantly refreshed.
7. amelius · 1789990351 · focus · HN ↗
  Why not make filming opt-in rather than opt-out?
  1. Avicebron · 1789990771 · focus · HN ↗
    How do you opt out when someone rocks up to the restaurant you are in or the publoc restroom wearing these?
    cwillu · 1789993841 · focus · HN ↗
    That's the point: filming should be opt-in.
    IAmBroom · 1789994654 · focus · HN ↗
    What does that even mean? You have to opt in to film?
    If you meant to say "to being filmed", how do you implement that? People have been filming crowds since the 1950s; "Candid Camera" famously made covert filming mainstream.
    "Should be" is a dream of the Good Ship Lollipop. Here IRL, laws and regulations are the only thing that will discourage it.
    thesuitonym · 1789997156 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't do it with technology alone (or really at all). It has to be the law that does this.
    cwillu · 1789999229 · focus · HN ↗
    And yet there are a variety of countries that have such laws: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements" rel="nofollow">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...
    cwillu · 1789999457 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, laws and regulations are how you would make something opt-in. I don't see the problem, but thanks for the downvote I guess?
    Sohcahtoa82 · 1790018118 · focus · HN ↗
    This opens a huge can of worms.
    Dash cams would effectively become illegal.
    Someone just wanting to record themselves and some friends doing something would need to ask explicit permission from everyone in the background.
    It's just not a tenable option.
    cwillu · 1790155492 · focus · HN ↗
    Perhaps one should look at the laws in place in the regions of the world where this is already true to see examples of how these worms can be handled.
8. kandros · 1789990711 · focus · HN ↗
  there was a black mirror episode on something similar IIRC
9. rainelli · 1789990946 · focus · HN ↗
  Not too dissimilar to the Black Mirror episode "White Christmas" where you can block other people in real life. Except in this case it's glasses and in Black Mirror retinal implants. We're getting there.
10. TeMPOraL · 1789992246 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes. And an app could render the same thing on your screen via the same tech currently used to robustly watermark generative AI image output, and now not only you won't be able to screenshot the app, you also won't be able to take a photo of it with another device, and on the off chance you found some pre-202X camera that still could, no other computer would display the resulting photo either.
  Yes, let's keep coming with great ideas.
  To cut this short: the whole overall idea is just universal DRM writ large.
11. kdjdkcneixj · 1789994260 · focus · HN ↗
  And now you’re a walking antenna broadcasting your face/biometric ID hash to anyone in range.
  Sounds a lot worse. The possible applications of this alone are infinitely more scary than perverts filming others without their consent.
  This is THE nightmare scenario. Think about it for a second and you’ll see why.
12. 63stack · 1789994880 · focus · HN ↗
  Great idea, we could also have a standard in browsers that signals you don't want to be tracked. We could call it the "Do not track" header, short for DNT.
  It would make sure no websites track you.
13. rickdeckard · 1789995588 · focus · HN ↗
  I remember there was a patent from Apple for a QR-code which would cause devices to stop filming when it's detected...
  The idea was for concert venues display these on-stage to block smartphones from filming (and redirect users to iTunes purchases instead IIRC)
14. thesuitonym · 1789997240 · focus · HN ↗
  And what happens when some bad actor actively monitors for that signal and seeks out the people who have it? And why does it require carrying my surveillance device to tell others I don't want to be surveilled?
15. Aurornis · 1789997769 · focus · HN ↗
  > All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings.
  Rendering security cameras useless for identifying any criminals?
  Maybe some of these commenters aren’t old enough to remember when fighting for your right to take photographs and videos in public places was one of the frequent topics in online places like Slashdot and BoingBoing. There have been waves of attempts to restrict freedoms to take photos in many countries. When they pass there’s a significant loss of personal rights and freedoms.
  > Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party.
  Do you really want this? An off-button for all cameras nearby? Please purchase your official photographs from the gift shop or from the $5 Photo Booth.
  This would be a dream for bad people who don’t want to be recorded or photographed doing something, like a bad police officer. Just keep a device around that broadcasts the “do not record at this venue” signal and you can shut down recordings all around.
eqvinox · 1789989227 · focus · HN ↗
Amazing. But it won't work for long, they'll patch the BT beacons with some "privacy" mode :(
1. tkw01536 · 1789990311 · focus · HN ↗
  And even if not - could always make another device with the same company ID and flood everyone with false positives.
LightBug1 · 1789989320 · focus · HN ↗
v2.0 ... auto-project two middle fingers at the recording camera, in place of the recorded subjects face.
1. mrlonglong · 1789990723 · focus · HN ↗
  Upvoted for the best lulz of the day.
asar · 1789989373 · focus · HN ↗
cool solution to a problem that shouldnt even exist I'd say. how did it become ok to be recorded at all times without prior consent??
1. hermannj314 · 1789990398 · focus · HN ↗
  First they filmed the celebrities, then the politicians, then the cops, then came the ring cameras. It was a slow erosion over decades, the justification drifting from "they are a public figure" to "they are standing near me"
  I never knew why the paparazzi could harass celebrities and a few decades later we are all being secretly filmed for a Meta perv database.
2. probably_wrong · 1789990421 · focus · HN ↗
  A major factor is that the companies pushing for this technology are spending significant resources into making sure your consent isn't relevant. From this article [1] about Meta and smart glasses:
  > Five years ago, Facebook shut down the facial recognition system for tagging people in photos on its social network, saying it wanted to find “the right balance” for a technology that raises privacy and legal concerns. Now it wants to bring facial recognition back.
  > (…) The Silicon Valley company has been conferring since early last year about how to release a feature that carries “safety and privacy risks,” according to an internal document viewed by The New York Times. (…) Meta’s internal memo said the political tumult in the United States was good timing for the feature’s release.
  > “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” according to the document from Meta’s Reality Labs, which works on hardware including smart glasses.
  [1] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/meta-facial-recognition-smart-glasses.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/meta-facial-re... or <a href="https://archive.is/65Fze" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/65Fze
  1. wartywhoa23 · 1789991795 · focus · HN ↗
    > We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns
    And if there's no dynamic political environment at hand, we'll sure as hell fund its creation.
3. wartywhoa23 · 1789991584 · focus · HN ↗
  > how did it become ok to be recorded at all times without prior consent??
  Incrementally, apathetically and often to gleeful offerings of tinfoil hats to those who pointed out previous steps and extrapolated them forth.
4. IAmBroom · 1789995282 · focus · HN ↗
  1838 for still photography. Shortly after 1888 for movies.
  Despite the pearl-clutching in this thread, filming rando strangers without consent has always been legal and socially accepted.
  It's the prospect of being filmed frequently, and especially in more intimate situations than walking down the street, that is making people uneasy. Flock cameras agitate us because of the frequency of their use. Recording glasses enable the off-the-street problem.
ageitgey · 1789989542 · focus · HN ↗
Cool idea, but why not spend 5 minutes to tell Claude to generate something besides the default AI UI style for your app?
h1fra · 1789989614 · focus · HN ↗
I was going to say: can't wait for EU to regulate this, but they already did!
brap · 1789989617 · focus · HN ↗
Sorry to be that guy but:
>Quiet is not proof that nobody is recording, and a detection is not proof that anyone is
Is such claudespeak it’s not even annoying it’s just funny at this point
1. slacktivism123 · 1789990953 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
2. irl_zebra · 1789995520 · focus · HN ↗
  The great thing is that you did not have to be that guy or even spend time making this comment unless you really wanted to. It wasn't necessary.
bwnkl · 1789989749 · focus · HN ↗
> Own a pair? Add them to known devices
Oh, the hypocrisy
varispeed · 1789989879 · focus · HN ↗
I think this will go like this: - Resistance. People don't like being "secretly" filmed. - Most people will realise it does not affect their lives. - People will ignore it - New generation will accept as something normal to do. Everyone recording everyone.
1. cwillu · 1789997919 · focus · HN ↗
  Meanwhile: <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-man-reveals-really-killed-club-culture-2054095" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-man-reveals-really-killed-clu...
  1. varispeed · 1790065986 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think that's that.
    Last time I went to a club and the place just stank of piss, poo and sweat. This was at so called world class clubbing venue in London.
    Then the prices. Nobody can afford that.
    Then people don't fancy drinking anymore and if you prefer weed, then likely it will get confiscated and you get kicked out.
craniumjello · 1789989895 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
1. ChrisRR · 1789993695 · focus · HN ↗
  Are you lost?
  1. craniumjello · 1790000218 · focus · HN ↗
    No artist tho
throwaway85825 · 1789989953 · focus · HN ↗
A better solution would be a miniaturized quadrf style device that could see radio sources and overlay them.
dmaa · 1789990058 · focus · HN ↗
Unlike other commenters, I do not mind the ai-ness of this app. This is a quick solution to a problem that we should not have had in the first place.
gitowiec · 1789990104 · focus · HN ↗
pl_PL ( ｡ ♡ ‿ ♡ ｡ )
1. omuborze · 1789992673 · focus · HN ↗
  Czas dorosnąć.
  1. krige · 1789994118 · focus · HN ↗
    Czas umierać.
  2. gitowiec · 1790014605 · focus · HN ↗
    Czas się odpierolić i iść swoją drogą
ebtebt · 1789990314 · focus · HN ↗
What is the difference betwen this and <a href="https://www.noglasshole.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.noglasshole.com/ ?
1. queenkjuul · 1789990848 · focus · HN ↗
  The live music image in their collage is hilarious: it's blurring the backs of people's heads, and presumably blurs the faces of the band, as how would it know the difference
2. ealhad · 1789991145 · focus · HN ↗
  wtf is this
  the demo video really looks ai generated — several weird artifacts, but what bugs me the most is that at the end the alleged glasses-wearer goes through two men between whom clearly there is no space for a third person.
  1. ebtebt · 1789993038 · focus · HN ↗
    I have no idea, I saw it linked here and figured it would have been more or less legit. <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/news/modders-can-remove-the-recording-light-from-metas-smart-glasses-for-a-price" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcmag.com/news/modders-can-remove-the-recording-...
    ebtebt · 1789993109 · focus · HN ↗
    It is, however, open-source (albeit it looks dead AF) <a href="https://github.com/infinitefutureinc/nohole" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/infinitefutureinc/nohole
niemandhier · 1789990431 · focus · HN ↗
Good to know, now I need to find my flipper zero and build a small app to use the information gained.
VeejayRampay · 1789990647 · focus · HN ↗
we really need to regulate fast on those pervert glasses
1. wafflez · 1790002859 · focus · HN ↗
  Good luck with that.
nubinetwork · 1789991180 · focus · HN ↗
So google can already figure out if you're being followed by an air tag, why can't they natively scan Bluetooth for smart glasses and do what zuckoff does without a third party app?
1. functionmouse · 1789991273 · focus · HN ↗
  An airtag is one device that by its nature desperately wants to be seen.
  1. Bluestein · 1789999395 · focus · HN ↗
    Like me ex ...
  2. iAMkenough · 1790002438 · focus · HN ↗
    Like, desperate enough to partner with Kylie Jenner on a failed PR campaign? Meta desperately wants you to be seen in these.
2. jclardy · 1789991482 · focus · HN ↗
  ...because they also are going to be selling smart glasses and don't want to trash a market they are about to join?
  1. someonebaggy · 1789993033 · focus · HN ↗
    So they should detect all glasses but their own.
anonreplier · 1789991246 · focus · HN ↗
Been around for ages for Android as "Nearby Glasses" app
ourmandave · 1789991517 · focus · HN ↗
I hope the Microsoft marketing dept is paying attention, because ZuckOff is amazing branding.
Instead of Copilot for Counter Spying, or Anti-Creeper.NET.
markvdb · 1789991701 · focus · HN ↗
Good. Now what about fscking smartphones? There's 1000 times more of those, most with dual cameras and microphones.
I have "Hey Siri!" enthousiasts visiting soon. They can leave their iPhones in a nice Faraday cage at the entrance.
1. kdjdkcneixj · 1789994714 · focus · HN ↗
  > I have "Hey Siri!" enthousiasts visiting soon. They can leave their iPhones in a nice Faraday cage at the entrance.
  He says, deeply immersed in big tech without even realising it.
  1. markvdb · 1790000420 · focus · HN ↗
    s/\ without\ even\ realising\ it//
2. IAmBroom · 1789995714 · focus · HN ↗
  Loved your scenes in "Call Saul".
jan_m_savage · 1789991819 · focus · HN ↗
love this. We need more anti-privacy gizmos like this!
1. ChrisRR · 1789993620 · focus · HN ↗
  Surely this is anti-anti-privacy?
  1. jan_m_savage · 1789996823 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh yes my bad. That's what I had meant but I was distracted and didn't notice. Thanks.
TomGarden · 1789992483 · focus · HN ↗
Seems this is a well branded slop app and there's other options, but I support anything to shame these out of the public. Genuinely if it made my phone blare a max volume alarm that called it out I would use it
marcosscriven · 1789992659 · focus · HN ↗
As much as I despise Meta and concerned about privacy, I’ve not found anything better for recording snippets of my glider flights than the Meta glasses.
I don’t post them anywhere (except occasionally to friends or family in direct messages).
I fly club gliders and can’t really attach a camera easily. And in any case the PoV is a useful learning tool. I can check I was doing lookout properly, I can see the instruments clearly and so forth.
I have a second pair of normal glasses that I always swap to when I’m back on the ground.
1. PUSH_AX · 1789996055 · focus · HN ↗
  The principal is a very cool bit of technology. There are authoritative blindness and eyesight medical institutions that are claiming this technology is great for people suffering from eye issues.
  The shouting match is being loudly won by people decrying the technology however, people can receive physical and verbal abuse on the streets for wearing them which is pretty scary.
  1. Eisenstein · 1789997700 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
puelocesar · 1789992935 · focus · HN ↗
I wonder the battery impact of discovering BT all the time..
latexr · 1789994301 · focus · HN ↗
> Own a pair? Mark them once and they stop raising alerts
So, spy glasses are only bad when other people do it?
Also feels icky that the first thing you’re confronted with when opening the website is merch.
Everything around this is making me suspicious of the authors intentions. This doesn’t feel made to solve the problem, but to capitalise on people who are against the glasses.
dirkc · 1789995159 · focus · HN ↗
> Quiet is not proof that nobody is recording, and a detection is not proof that anyone is
So, you might sometimes know that someone might be recording?
I don't want to dismiss that as useless, but that is a difficult signal to incorporate into behavior.
baggachipz · 1789997217 · focus · HN ↗
Remember when flip phone cameras were forced to add an un-mutable "click" sound when somebody snapped a photo, in order to try to stop creep shots? We've sure come a long way since then.
tantalor · 1789997655 · focus · HN ↗
A comment on the design of this site: I was super confused about what this actually is. How do I use "ZuckOff"? Is it a piece of hardware? A website that I just leave open? Do I download some software, or maybe fork a repo? Where is the fucking download link? Cmd-F for "download" and "install" fail.
I scrolled down. Only the newsletter and contact info at the bottom. Do I have to email them? I scrolled up. Just a list of features and description of what it does, but not how do I use it. What's the first step? Please for the love of God.
I see a big blue button that links to "the shop". Oh, maybe that's where I buy it? No it's just "merch". I'm not sure why some random piece of tech would be offering tote bags for $28 (!) but okay.
I go back to the website and keep hunting. Then I see a row of buttons squeezed in a random location, seemingly out of place, like the designer had a stroke at this point in the process. They don't match the visual style of the rest of the site, so they are easy to just ignore as clutter. One says (in very tiny letters) "download on the app store".
eecks · 1789998283 · focus · HN ↗
'loud' and 'quiet' is not good terminology for this
thiago_fm · 1790000197 · focus · HN ↗
This name is so good.
ZuckOff!
I wish they'd just make them illegal, it would be easier.
Like, if people want to use it on their private property, alright, legal.
But in public? I never accepted any terms and conditions for it...
1. Ylpertnodi · 1790000544 · focus · HN ↗
  Are there terms and conditions for someone using something you don't like, in public?
mukundzha6 · 1790000563 · focus · HN ↗
hey guyz! i just built a tiny, minimal coding agent called hazzel. you can check it, star or contribute in it if you find it intresting. the source code:- <a href="https://github.com/mukundzha/hazzel" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mukundzha/hazzel
badgersnake · 1790000699 · focus · HN ↗
Perhaps the techbros might eventually realise that smart glasses are a shit idea. I don’t have high hopes though, listening doesn’t seem to be their strong point. If they have a strong point.
jacquesm · 1790001162 · focus · HN ↗
earlier link
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785397">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785397
1. tomhow · 1790008719 · focus · HN ↗
  Comments moved thither. Thanks!
BubbleRings · 1790002982 · focus · HN ↗
It would be cool to see an individual US State pass a law to say that recording glasses have to have a visible logo on the front indicating recording capabilities.
tosti · 1790012281 · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://apt.izzysoft.de/packages/ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses" rel="nofollow">https://apt.izzysoft.de/packages/ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
1. dTal · 1790066477 · focus · HN ↗
  Why download from izzysoft.de when you can download from github? <a href="https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses/releases" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses/releases
  Note to lazy skimmers: this is not ZuckOff (which is a cash grab slop fest) but the app whose idea it stole - a hand coded, opensource equivalent with no trackers or in-app purchases.
  1. tosti · 1790088361 · focus · HN ↗
    Because I found it in F-Droid and used share to obtain the URL
  2. KetoManx64 · 1790113332 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would I want to be manually hunting through repos for app updates when I can have them all handled by one app?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.