Thread

Meta takes down a critical video about meta AI Glasses after filming at Meta

632 points · 395 comments · pieterr

jimbo456 · 1790253899 · focus · HN ↗
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.
1. acd · 1790254799 · focus · HN ↗
  We should together stop calling devices which film in dressing / locker rooms smart.
  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
  1. cogman10 · 1790255163 · focus · HN ↗
    Much like a cell phone, nobody would even really care if you brought a camcorder down so long as you aren't operating it (which is very obvious).
    What makes these things gross is that it's not obvious when someone is recording.
    b112 · 1790256887 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree we should do something in this instance, but with the speed of which things are changing? Eventually, this tech is going to be undetectable.
    "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:
    <a href="https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/cndii-cdncii/p6.html" rel="nofollow">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:
    <a href="https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/your-right-to-control-photos-and-videos-of-yourself/" rel="nofollow">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:
    <a href="https://www.quebec.ca/en/justice-and-civil-status/support-victims-crime/non-consensual-sharing-intimate-image" rel="nofollow">https://www.quebec.ca/en/justice-and-civil-status/support-vi...
    So this is already being criminalized in a lot of places.
    kshmir · 1790259187 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    pessimizer · 1790262336 · focus · HN ↗
    > Regardless, I agree for now? Yes. But the future? I don't see it as blockable forever.
    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.
    b112 · 1790273027 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not censorship to be in control of your own likeness. And having laws which are easy to call upon is part of justice being served. In the Quebec example, someone posting something about you is as easy as 'take that down' then 'police are called if you disobey the court', which is really how courts have always worked everywhere around the world.
    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.
    order-matters · 1790265749 · focus · HN ↗
    >to enable the blind to "see"
    Please watch this ad to enable 5 minutes of premium color vision!
    ben_w · 1790269041 · focus · HN ↗
    > "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.
    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: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis" rel="nofollow">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: <a href="https://originalpricing.com/ov6948-medical-camera-sensor/" rel="nofollow">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.
    b112 · 1790273292 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, the reality issue is big. This may be in fact the only thing which saves 'big' news. And it may be what kills all forms of social media posting.
    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.
    nnutter · 1790256987 · focus · HN ↗
    Which Meta Glasses try to counter by making it obvious when someone is recording with the recording light; arguably more obvious than cell phones.
    Saline9515 · 1790258245 · focus · HN ↗
    They are designed to be easy to bypass. Plenty of tutorials exist online and I can't imagine that Meta engineers didn't know about it beforehand.
    nickthegreek · 1790258818 · focus · HN ↗
    Provide this 'easy' tutorial please.
    __s · 1790260277 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/4352861484/smart-glasses-led-camera-cover-blocker" rel="nofollow">https://www.etsy.com/ca/listing/4352861484/smart-glasses-led...
    > Take control of your privacy with this easy-to-use LED and Camera Blocker
    nickthegreek · 1790260820 · focus · HN ↗
    That is a camera blocker. your camera will not work with that.
    QuantumNomad_ · 1790262967 · focus · HN ↗
    Read the product description:
    > 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.
    nickthegreek · 1790267288 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah, well that wont work. If you block the LED, the camera doesnt work.
    nvme0n1p1 · 1790269024 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-bypass-the-meta-glasses-anti-creep-feature/" rel="nofollow">https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
    Saline9515 · 1790343039 · focus · HN ↗
    Search for "meta glasses led bypass" on youtube.
    <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bAw1ybPuzPk" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bAw1ybPuzPk
    AlecSchueler · 1790258272 · focus · HN ↗
    And the next generation of "smart glasses" made by companies that aren't so reliant on public image will just forgo this entirely voluntary nicety.
    DamnInteresting · 1790258805 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a technology that can hide an LED light, it is called "a small piece of tape."
    flumes_whims_ · 1790262120 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know how effective it or how it works but Meta says they disable recording if the recording light is blocked.
    <a href="https://9to5google.com/2026/07/07/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses-privacy-light-camera-update/" rel="nofollow">https://9to5google.com/2026/07/07/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses...
    Tempest1981 · 1790264458 · focus · HN ↗
    And someone quickly hacked around it:
    <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-bypass-the-meta-glasses-anti-creep-feature/" rel="nofollow">https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-by...
    ethbr1 · 1790268654 · focus · HN ↗
    The idea that Meta gives any serious shits about anyone's privacy or well-being when it's in opposition to their revenue is laughable.
    The $17b settlement they just agreed to said as much.
    hamburga · 1790260227 · focus · HN ↗
    > As he films them from multiple angles, the predominantly English-speaking employees ask the presenter questions such as, "What are you doing?" and "Are you filming me right now?"
    Meta employees themselves couldn't tell if he was recording!
    randallsquared · 1790263972 · focus · HN ↗
    This is the non-confrontational way to say, "I know you are recording". It allows a quick "Oh, sorry" if the person is willing to turn it off when confronted, without escalating to an actual confrontation.
    Tanjreeve · 1790263949 · focus · HN ↗
    You have to hold up a cell phone to film people with it. It's a very obvious action. Definitely not intentional in the design but it's an accidental feature.
  2. nnutter · 1790257070 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't like it but it's totally normal, especially for youth, to have their cell phones out in locker rooms. Targeting only glasses with this concern is largely out of touch with current behavior.
    ohrus · 1790257480 · focus · HN ↗
    That isn't normal and it's actively enforced against in gyms and pools where I live.
    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...
    tuckerman · 1790258129 · focus · HN ↗
    > That isn't normal
    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.
    AlecSchueler · 1790258349 · focus · HN ↗
    > All the smart glasses I know of have a light on when recording.
    How long until someone differentiates themselves on the market by not having the light?
    tuckerman · 1790258813 · focus · HN ↗
    I would be surprised if those don't already exist, I hear stories in the news all the time about small hidden cameras places they shouldn't be. For a private space like the locker room I'm not sure what option there is besides laws making that illegal (I assume/hope that already is?). Someone dedicated already can get a much more discreet camera.
    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.
    myvoiceismypass · 1790259142 · focus · HN ↗
    People already sell services to disable the light.
    soylentcola · 1790259832 · focus · HN ↗
    Not to minimize Meta's push for these things, but there have been devices that do this for quite a while now. You can get tiny cameras hidden in pens, watches, glasses, and all sorts of other items.
    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.
    dns_snek · 1790335802 · focus · HN ↗
    > All the smart glasses I know of have a light on when recording.
    that light can be easily disabled
    <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-...
    mrweasel · 1790263811 · focus · HN ↗
    My children's school have an interesting way of dealing with the ever growing list of devices they need a policy for. They borrowed the police term "data carrying devices" and wrote a policy based on that. When Metas glasses started to be come a problem no policy change was needed for the school, they were automatically covered.
    That's probably the best solution, deal with the functionality, not the device type.
  3. yellow_lead · 1790261935 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, they're spy glasses / perv glasses.
  4. boplicity · 1790267754 · focus · HN ↗
    They're basically Flock Cameras, except they could appear anywhere. Nobody wants mobile surveillance potentially brought into any room.
  5. abhinav_sk · 1790307878 · focus · HN ↗
    Are smartphones just phones now?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.