A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.

  • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 days ago

    While Meta built in a small LED light in the front of its glasses to indicate when it’s recording a video, it can easily be covered by a small piece of tape, making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent. As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.

    I was under the impression that covering the LED would prevent the camera function from working. I guess it doesn’t.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent.

      Hang on. I don’t need Meta glasses to spy on strangers in public. I can creep perfectly fine in my mirrored sunglasses.

      • logging_strict@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        and hidden cameras are a thing. The only reason the camera is worn is to know what target to focus upon.

        Footage from cops cams are from chest level. These cop cams have been pushed upon cops because they lie 100% of the time. I enjoy their stories. The more absurd the better.

    • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.

      From what I’ve heard the glasses have become popular among university students, and they’ve become yet another issue that has to be looked out for there.

      The amount of precautions that have to be taken during exam time at universities keeps increasing. The testing rooms these days sound like they’re locked down as tightly as a jail.

      • stray@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, but usually you know you’re being recorded because you can see the recording device. I think it’s fair to film in public, but not secretly.

        • mikesizachrist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          Why does secretly matter? Unless they’re peeping under a skirt. It’s not “spying” - you’re in public.

          • stray@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            If you know you’re being filmed, you usually modify your behavior accordingly. You can actively participate in whatever’s being filmed, double-check your posture, cover your face and walk away, etc. Not everyone wants their image spread online, so it’s important to give people the opportunity to avoid being filmed.

            • mikesizachrist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              2 days ago

              Clearly she did know she was being filmed but thats besides the points. 1: you’re nearly always being filmed in public.

              My point is you’re not being spied on if you’re in public. Grown ass adult crying “stop looking at me!!!”

          • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Why do you care if you have nothing to hide is a weak argument that’s been used to erode our rights. Fuck off.

            • mikesizachrist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              2 days ago

              Dumb fuck, you dont have a “right” to privacy in public. Also i never said that you fucking moron. Have fun fighting imaginary arguments in an empty room.

              • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                You absolutely do, and even the Supreme Court has sided that you have some expectation of privacy. Blanket “you don’t have a right to privacy” is why I’m calling you a dumbass. The EFF even agrees with me.

                I don’t know what empty rooms you’re in, but I’m not surprised I guess given the kind of creep you are.

                EFF article

                • mikesizachrist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  You should try reading that article yourself, which is about aggregated, long-term tracking (like GPS data or ALPR networks) and persistent surveillance over time, which is very different from the moment-to-moment visibility you have on a train.

                  Damn dude, you look really fucking stupid here, do you want to try again?

                  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Actually you’re the one looking fucking stupid, here.

                    The idea that we don’t have the right to privacy in public was first argued in regards to legitimate use of cameras in public and when a video maker does (or doesn’t) need to get your permission.

                    If you’re caught on camera incidentally during a news story about a house fire. Or you’re in the background of a surveillance tape of a robbery they’re showing on the news. Or traffic cameras, or cop dash cams. Legitimate uses where public interest is a priority.

                    If a filmmaker is shooting a scene on location (for an example of the other direction), and they happen to catch some members of the public, they need to get those people to sign a consent form, or else they can’t use the footage. This is the law, I believe, EVERYWHERE that has ever argued this in court.

                    So yes, while there are legitimate reasons that a person’s privacy is considered able to be suspended (such as news in the public interest), contributing to some incel’s spank-bank isn’t one of those reasons. And you’re a fucking idiot if you don’t grasp that concept.

                  • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    So you agree you have a right to privacy in public? How are you soooo close to getting it and then losing the fucking plot.

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          in the USA basically every third home as a doorbell camera these days. you are constantly being recorded everywhere you go, at least in urban areas. anytime i walk my dog at night everyone’s doorbell cams are lighting up.