“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”
“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF’s investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”
Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck’s pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick’s sake.
There was a similar news article in Germany a few days ago. It was about a “pick-up artist/dating coach/influencer” named Erick Ronaldo secretly filming some girl at the Oktoberfest and posting it to his channel where that girl was ridiculed in the comments. (Fun fact: when the news media approached that guy and asked for a statement, he demanded $7,500 for an interview - which they, of course, didn’t pay)
he demanded $7,500 for an interview
Is he going to ask the police to pay him for interrogation?
heimliches Filmen ist aktuell in Deutschland nicht per se strafbar. Besonders in öffentlichen Räumen sind Betroffene kaum geschützt.
(Roughly in English)
covert filming isn’t currently illegal in Germany per se. Those filmed are rarely protected, especially in public
Filming in public not being illegal, I get, but he’s profiting off of her likeness. Ideally that would be illegal itself, but even if not, could she not sue him for a share? Obviously, putting the burden on victims is not a great remedy, especially because it’s expensive, a huge hassle, and risks the Streisand effect, but I could see a women’s rights organization orchestrating it for her and it might be possible to keep her identity secret.
Again, I don’t think that’s ideal, but it seems better than nothing and wouldn’t preclude criminal charges from going through if the government does figure out how to prosecute this
Filming by itself isn’t illegal in Germany, but publishing the footage without consent of everyone in the video is. (“Recht am eigenen Bild”) Don’t know how this applies if the perpetrator is from the USA and publishes the recording there, though.
And even if - good luck in suing someone from the US while you’re still in Germany.
You could at least get it taken down from YouTube through German privacy rights, since it was filmed in Germany.
Yeah, probably. But this doesn’t help much when the damage is already done, i.e. people have already commented bad things. And might even entice people (that might’ve downloaded it) to upload it again. Also, not sure whether this works as easy on e.g. TikTok.
Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles
Didnt that already get done to demonstrate the complete lack of privacy caused by this?
Checking…
Yeah this was what I was thinking of: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/rsac-meta-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-hacked-live-demo-2026/
Stories like this are gonna get worse. These glasses naturally self-select for assholes.
Glassholes.
I’m being filmed without my consent by corporations everywhere I go
Yes but they have the right
The free app NearbyGlasses can detect their Bluetooth signal and tell you if someone is wearing them in range of your phone.
This could save you from being filmed by influencers, or creeps. Let the women in your life know.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
Ugh watch me install this then have it just be government owned spyware
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
it is öpen source
I think we have some Meta Glasses owners replying as well.
Developed by a PhD professor in the Sociology of Gender and the Applied Sciences at LMU Munich:
This is apparently their first app, as they’re a programming hobbyist. Their research is in technology’s effects on women and gender relations.
as they’re a programming hobbyist.
So they vibe-coded it. No thanks.
If you actually looked at the link that they gave you, it’s pretty obvious that the person has a lot of programming experience. I would say less than 2% of the developers I’ve ever met have an app on the app store so for a lot of them it would be their first app if they published one too.
Removed by mod
Wow, this violates privacy! You mean this scans for nearby devices? Completely exposing nearby consumers of those devices? Totally illegal
\sbtwdeleted by creator
The world has gone to shit because capitalism created a reality where Mark Zuckerberg’s dreams come true.
If only people had said “no thanks, I’m good” when Fakebook rolled out. Of course something else equally as shitty would have probably taken its place.
If only people would just stop fucking using it. It’s still a choice to use it.
I quit facebook about 15 years ago. I still have people trying to share facebook links with me or suggesting I make a fake account for whatever bullshit reason they think I need one. Even reasonable and well-educated people in my life don’t seem to understand the purpose of not having facebook is not having fucking facebook.
Hindsight is 20/20 but only few, if any, expected how big of a giant piece of shit Facebook will become and especially its founder. Most people thought it is just another fad, and expected it will go the way of most other social media sites at the time such as Friendster, Bebo and MySpace.
Zuck was always a giant piece of shit. On discussing the information its first users’ willingness to give personal details to The Face Book back at (?) Harvard (?) he said: “… They just send it to me. They trust me. The dumb fucks.”
He was mask-off from the beginning. We’re (society, not addressing anyone individually) just really blind to threats when distracted by shiny, noisy crap.
Most people would not have known about what Zuck in the earlier years of Facebook. Heck, even to this day, either most people still don’t know or don’t care. Facebook is still extremely popular in developing countries because the site is free regardless of whether or not you have a mobile internet data. But they don’t realise they are being manipulated by the social media to give them free information and to vote a certain way in elections that is against their own interest.
You forget this is, by definition, before Facebook. It’s also before any social media became popular. People had never heard the name Zuckerberg, let alone heard what he was like. And people had not had to deal with this type of predatory company. Google was still “don’t be devil”, and Microsoft was a completely different type of predator - one asking for money, not giving things for free.
As others have said: hindsight is easy, but this was a very different time.
It’s kind of like survivorship bias: The ones who rise to the very top must be the most ruthless and biggest pieces of shit. It’s like taking 20 trials to rise to the top, and to succeed each trial fucking others over and only concerning yourself with your advancement is beneficial. It only leaves the worst.
It certainly paves the way for kakistocracy
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No, consent is saying yes or no, not wether or not I see a small LED (which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual)
which can probably also be disabled by the savvy individual
You don’t need to be too savy to put a little piece of black tape over it
It is not that simple. It has a sensor to check if the led is covered.
Tell that to some states in the US where there’s a thing called “one-party consent”, i.e. if one party knows about the recording (which the wearer obviously would), it’s legal.
That’s for reccrding audio, iirc. Much more defensible and protects the little guy more. Eg, recording a meeting with an asshole boss
It’s the same in Sweden, you are allowed to record any conversation you yourself is taking part in. I think it’s a fair law. Video though, not so much.
deleted by creator
That’s for audio, not video, but it does bring up a point - do these glasses record audio? Because that could be a legal defense in a two party consent state. It would essentially make it illegal in two party states. It also depends on whether audio in public is protected at all, the way video is.
Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?
No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological “advances”, and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone’s attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don’t because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.
There is generally no such consent required in public in most countries
There is generally no such consent required in public in most countries
Not when one is a part of a crowd, but when the focus is directly on someone, consent should be asked.
Should and needs to be are different things
It’s the whole entire point of these glasses so this surely cannot be a surprise.
I’m just waiting for bans on these glasses now, because that is inevitably where this is headed as the public at large simply cannot be trusted to handle this kind of technology responsibly.
And the harder these glasses become to spot, the broader the bans will be, undoubtedly right up the point where they’ll just straight up refuse anybody with any kind of thick framed glasses.
Given that cameras are readily available to the public, these glasses will likely only be banned in specific controlled locations.
I mean I can literally just put my phone in a shirt pocket with camera rolling.
A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF’s investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.
You need a tutorial to use a piece of electrical tape?
Supposedly there is a sensor that detects if the recording light is covered and disables the camera, so it’s about bypassing that.
Idk. Bans on recording someone in public without their consent, feel like a really difficult thing to properly enforce – with or without the glasses. The number of people doing it with Smartphones already, in most jurisdictions at least, would make such a law’s wide-spread enforcement seem implausible. And I mean, you’re in a public area, so you sorta need to expect less privacy… because it’s in public?
Most places have laws on this. Often, it is legal to film/take photos, but not to focus on individuals.
Yeah, I’m not as fussed over having laws on books, but on whether those laws are realistically enforceable. Like I recall reading at some point that lots of jurisdictions in the states define things like Orgies as a group of three or more people in a private dwelling without shoes on, based on ancient prudish attempts to describe what goes on. That’s a law that’s “on the books”, but practically unenforceable.
Same sort of thought pattern, to me, generally applies to the recording of people in public. It’s practically implausible that govt can enforce it uniformly, and it’s on the books just so they can ‘throw another book’ at a perp who’s been arrested for far greater offenses. There are also potential issues with ‘two party consent’ type recording setups, where one party is wanting to document events for legitimate reasons (recording an interaction with police, to CYA).
Idk. People taking pictures / recording public ‘things’, doesn’t seem like a practical area for privacy legislation to come in overly heavy handed on.
I think you can ban using such recordings in social media posts and such. The line your have to watch for is news reporters vs social media influencers. But it would at least enable prosecution of the dumb ones who don’t even claim to be news reporters…
Yeah, I’d stopped short of noting that it’d prolly be more realistic to enforce regulations on wide-spread sharing / social media hosting of such content. Like in some ways, recording someone in public for whatever reason seems reasonable – recording interactions with police, for example, being an area that makes a good deal of sense – but posting those recordings, especially with the implied ‘hope’ that they go viral / generate notoriety and/or monetized returns, is pretty dicey.
Yeah, it’s hard to make a law that stops this, but doesn’t get used against actual journalists. And the way the news media is trending more toward being social media influencer isn’t helping. Maybe entitling the person to compensation based on what the influencer got might be possible. That would keep at least free journalists out of the picture. And the paid journalists can afford to pay people if something goes viral, or to take the time to get a waiver or something. Or maybe a combination involving secret recordings, since most of the regular news media is pretty obvious.
looks like governments are going to need more specific rules for smaller regions within cities. that would be a start, but ironically, it would probably drive more surveillance in public spaces.
Who could have seen this coming? Who?
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.
That’s actually a very good point. Glasses such as these could indeed be used preventively as shitty behavior dash cams.
We need videos on tiktok and insta of hot women making brutal commentary of men in public, filmed on Meta glasses.
It’s the only way.
I am not a fan of this technology, but as far as I am aware there is not expectation of privacy when in public.
I am filmed constantly without my knowledge when in public in the UK.
According to google there are restrictions in the EU about publishing videos of people in public where you make them the focus of the video.
Germany is not “the EU”, even if they think they are.
But they are in the EU.
“in the EU, journalism is oppressed and genocides can’t be recognised without special consideration of which special people are doing the genocide” would be a useful sentence by your logic.
Psssst: Brussels is the capital of Belgium, you know that little speck that isn’t Germany.
I’m aware. I’ve been.
Belgium has the right of panorama, an essential right for journalism.
Um… Ok thanks for sharing. Lol
There is a difference between surveillance by a democratically elected government and some random dude though.
I.e. in Germany homeowners are only allowed to film their own property. The cameras field of view may not reach into public space.
Also while photography in public spaces is generally allowed, people may demand the deletion of photos showing their face.
Surveillance by a government used to mean they had a random police officer follow you because it was worth the time. Now it’s on mass surveillence which is automated and fed into faulty AI systems flagging. A random dude with a camera doesn’t compare.
So to be clear, you are okay with being surveilled by the government?
So to be clear, you are OK with disbanding any form of law enforcement?
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
Being against public surveillance doesn’t mean I want to abolish ALL forms of law enforcement/ crime prevention.
My concern (living the UK, a country with a disproportionate number of cctv) is that a society with extensive surveillance infrastructure creates the capability for abuse tomorrow. Once cameras, facial recognition systems, vehicle tracking, and data retention systems exist, future governments inherit those powers regardless of their good intent (or not as the case may be).
It’s already happening here. These systems are being used for “behaviour analysis” and tracking of lawful activities like protests and political activity. They his kind of mission creep is a slippery slope.
There is also the question of effectiveness. The UK has one of the highest densities of CCTV cameras in the democratic world, yet evidence on their impact varies significantly. There is little statistical reduction in inner city crime as a result beyond drug crime (20%), which in my opinion could be handled in a much more positive way.
I can’t speak for other countries.
So yeah, I am anti government surveillance.
Oh, so a short sentence can imply a more nuanced opinion on a subject? /s
Maybe keep that in mind next time before jumping to conclusions.
On the subject: If you want to enforce laws you have to have a way of knowing about violations. This happens via surveillance. Having CCTV is obviously surveillance but so is to show a driver’s license. Or compliance documentation. So the question is not whether or not you want government surveillance or not but how much.
Ah yes, because there is no space between a surveillance state and “disbanding all forms of law enforcement”
FFS at least try to argue in good faith.
You should take your own advice
I didn’t think I’d need an /s for this comment but here we go:
/s
deleted by creator
Ray-Ban Meta glasses detection app. : https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
AI’s against AI’s. Apps against apps. I want to get off this planet at the next stop.
The worst thing about vulture capital targeting young manipulable tech bros for their get rich schemes is that has created a self perpetuating mono culture of spoiled rich grifters with stunted emotional maturity that never progressed beyond teenage boy. The have been allowed to dominate everything and are shaping the rage baited, meme ridden, dumbarse, ignorant dystopia. Lets just pull the plug on them and stop giving them money. Then they will all fuck off back to their mum’s basement to play video games and jerk off to their ai.
