985
DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses' (www.theregister.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 130 points 3 months ago (2 children)

All hidden cameras should be illegal, I don’t care about your “hands free convenience”

This is like anti pervert laws 101

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yep. If you want to record everything going on from your POV, strap a GoPro to your head and see if people's moods change about it. If they clearly don't want that, they don't want the "convenient" hidden cameras either. Simple as that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago

    They don't want people knowing they are being recorded.

    A gopro or a phone held up is basically an indicator of recording happening, which people can choose to avoid if they want to.

    But pervert glasses don't hold up that signal, and the pathetic attempt to make a signal (the LED) is easily covered or otherwise bypassed so you can creep on people without them ever knowing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 178 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Defcon is not the place I’d want to wear something like that and make myself a target. Of course, I’d be embarrassed to wear them anywhere, but afraid at Defcon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 98 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Shit, I’d be scared to go anywhere near defcon with any device.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Eh, it's not that bad

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    Random files appearing in the downloads folder on my phone has only happened once
    ¯\(ツ)/¯

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Let me guess, it was an iPhone? Someone just used AirDrop and you might've allowed everyone sending you files.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    It was Android :-) WiFi, NFC and BT turned off. It was Android 12 I believe, back in 2022.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Did you use a "supplied" charger while there?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Nope - aware of juice jackers, so I only used my own cables and adapters (even have a USB condom).

    I'm generally pretty security aware, but my only theory of how it landed there is some cellular exploit. Whether it was a crafted MMS, a custom cell site, or something else I don't know.

    I did use mobile data for some ubers, but that was off-site.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I was afraid walking into the room with the wall of sheeple just bc I was wearing a button down in spite of being the sole sponsor of the hackathon. I (as instructed) left my watch, phone, laptop etc at hotel and only brought locked down Chromebook and lived in sweaty terror every keystroke. All while they were stoked and loving the sponsor not just buying a logo, and sent me back with like 500 bucks in swag easily to share back home at the office. Still.... Terror.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 23 points 3 months ago

    Fortunately most of the attendees are genuinely good folks, so generally what really happens is just that some data gets scraped and everybody has a bit of a laugh at one of the talks.

    I know worse happens, I just think it’s worth mentioning it is actually a group of mostly awesome people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 56 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    conference organizers said they have imposed a ban on “Meta-style glasses with recording capabilities.”

    Dammit. I was hoping they explicitly called them "pervert glasses" like the headline suggested.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 51 points 3 months ago (40 children)

    Like, I guess I don’t understand why these damn things have a camera in the first place. At most they should be roughly equivalent to a smart watch - a display and some controls. Maybe bone-conducting headphones or something for audio. It’d be neat to have navigation prompts in glasses, for instance. Buy why a fucking camera?!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
    •
  • [–] 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (19 children)

    Were it not for the fact that it's the fucking privacy-invading big tech companies doing it, I would admit that there are good use-cases for the camera:

    • Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you're talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I'm not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.
    • Scanning, OCR-ing and making searchable any papers you're looking at (hooking to your selfhosted Paperless-NGX).
    • Displaying augmented-reality translations of street signs (which is one of the few reasonable things Google Glass actually did).
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I've heard they can be also quite useful for blind/vision-impaired users to describe surroundings and read signs, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Yep. That’s the sort of thing that interested me as a visually impaired guy (I see about 20 percent with my contacts). It’s a shame I can’t really buy and use them for that since I’d likely get physically assaulted for using them for benign purposes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Check your local laws, but you can probably buy and carry a white cane so long as you aren't trying to scam the legal benefits of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Everyone can, there’s no legal issues with it. Same as wheelchairs. You can buy and use one if you like. Of course, people will be weirded out if you do it, but there’s absolutely nothing illegal about it.

    That said, I’ve never needed a cane even though I’ve been trained to use a ‘recognition cane’ to cross the street (I went to a school for the visually impaired, where they teach everyone how to do that).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It's huge for this. Aiming and trying to frame the camera for a phone app sucks. Pointing your head is a lot more natural.

    The "medical device " solutions are bulky, exceedingly expensive, and lack creature comforts like Bluetooth audio from your phone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Even then I could see people not wanting picture, video, or audio recorded of them even if it is just kept locally for private use. And that's the problem of these glasses with trying to be discrete so people who would have avoided you or asked you to stop recording before having a conversation are left unaware.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (10 children)

    They'd be helpful when interacting with police. Heck, I could see them being useful when interacting with anyone in a hostile situation. What people will say when they don't think they're being recorded and what they will say when they know they are can be vastly different, and the people that will speak and act differently are the very ones you want to record. I've had occasions in the past where these would have been very useful, though it turned out recorded audio was sufficent.

    Unfortunately the tech is ripe for abuse and I understand the mistrust they cause. Too many crappy people, and too many crappy tech companies that will abuse the video themselves even if the person wearing them only used them with good intentions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Even though I agree with recording police, the fact that your first thought went straight to “hidden camera for the purpose of recording without consent” makes this a nonstarter to begin with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Most states it's legal to record audio without consent if you're a party to the conversation, and it's legal federally. Recording video in public is ok most everywhere.

    For me personally I went to jail for false accusations of assault. I had no choice but to interact with a very scheming and hostile individual for a long time and if I'd not recorded the conversations - on advice from my friend and attorney - I'd have likely not beat the charges. So yeah... I very much have a scenario in mind where these would have been helpful and there are certainly others who can probably relate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    This is similar to the type of arguments made by those wanting increased surveillance with stuff like flock camera and ID online verification expansion. Pointing to the bad things in the world it helps prevent or track down that happens.

    And pointing to the law to keep pushing what they are allowed to record and track.

    Privacy and security has been a balancing act. And even examples of bad thing that happens I'm sure you can relate is the very common attempt at emotional appeal used by them.

    Not denying your use case, but when it comes to surveillance they all seem to use the argument of safety.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    A person being able to record what they see and hear is different than a robot that records everything. I strongly disapprove of flock and online ID verification. Those aren't related to a person being able to make a personal record.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'm sure that's the argument Meta is making for their glasses.

    People aren't any better, since people are more likely to be recording specifically for the purposes of resharing and we do live in a social media age.

    And these devices as they gain popularity would be relaying information back to the companies anyways, so make the claims of it being local or private not matter when that wouldn't be the average wearable discrete tech that would gain mainstream popularity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    As I said I'm not arguing for Meta's glasses. They're ripe for abuse and I have no doubt there are people who would use them in inappropriate ways and in non-public places where a person otherwise expects some privacy.

    While there are valid reasons for recording things both in public and private, without a doubt the ability to secretly record video will be abused.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Whether its meta or not, discrete wearable video recording is not something I am in favor of. Like the recent LG spyware installing on people's Windows PC shows, many tech companies aren't in the business of being privacy respecting in the products they offer. It's usually those companies that gain market share.

    And individuals with how quick they are to live stream and share every picture and video voluntarily to social media sites doesn't much lend to responsible use either. At least those people aren't usually hiding that they are recording.

    When it comes to legal audio wiretapping those are already sufficient in places where it is legal to be used in cases like yours. So I don't much see a need to further extend hidden audio recordings to also include hidden video recordings with wearables. Cases where video is also needed seem more like very specific niche cases involving investigations, so to shift it to being an every day casual accessory I dont see as necessary.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    They weren't talking about legality. They were talking about ethics. Recording people without consent is one thing, but doing it secretly is another. For police, I'd argue there's implied consent as they're public servants who are theoretically working for us. (I know, they're working for the owner class, but they're paid by taxpayers.) Anyone else though? I'd say that's fairly ethically corrupt. Obviously there are exceptions, but generally it should be seen as a bad thing to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    38 states believe if you're a party to a conversation, you have a right to record it and I agree. I would have no problems if a state put restrictions on it, such as it not being legal to share unless the person was lying about or otherwise misrepresenting what was said, but I see no reason you shouldn't be allowed to protect yourself.

    But 12 states do require two-party - technically all-party - concent. I won't suggest there aren't reasons that some states are like that but I'm sure glad I didn't live in one of those because if so my recordings would have been inadmissible in court and I might have went to jail for quite a while.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago

    Legality ≠ morality. 38 states believe you shouldn't be prosecuted for the act. That is not a statement in what you should or should not do. I agree mostly with not making it illegal because, like I said, there are exceptions that make it something you should do. The law does not handle things like that well.

    This isn't to say someone shouldn't punch you in the face if you're filming them doing something they believed to be private. Are you legally allowed to? Sure. Should society allow it, in all cases all the time? Fuck no, and there should be consequences for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you’re talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I’m not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.

    I would rather the person shattered a glass fountain pen in my urethra than scanned my face because they forgot my name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Yes this is the exact thing I'm interested in. Camera is definitely not something needed here. There are some like this on the market like the MemoMind. I'm waiting for one with progressive lens support like the Even Realities G2 but with audio added.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    Part of me understands having a camera for AR lookups and such, and in my line of work a hands free camera would be amazing especially if I could pull the image back up on the glasses and zoom in on serial numbers etc, but I don't trust Meta with being on my phone let alone having a live video feed from my eye line at all times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    I would LOVE to have a nice pair of camera glasses. I love my dashcam, I’m so excited when something crazy happens (that doesn’t involve me) so I can save the video to show to my partner. I’d loooove that while just walking around.

    No fucking chance I want that device to have Internet access, absolutely not. I specifically got the best dashcam I could that has NO Bluetooth or WiFi capabilities, local storage only.

    I fully see the value in having a hands-free camera while I’m walking around, exploring, people-watching, etc. but anything that I don’t have the control of where the data all goes is incredibly not bueno.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    I’m walking around, exploring, people-watching, etc. but anything that I don’t have the control of where the data all goes

    I think the ethical problem is that the people you’re watching don’t have any control over where that video go tbh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Nobody has any control over where dashcam videos go, or where videos we take with our phones go… but those are okay. If I put my phone on an armband or a shirt pocket and record, isn’t that basically the same thing as having camera glasses?

    I’m fine with someone recording with a camera in public, that’s all cool. But I don’t wanna be anywhere near anything connected to Facebook. I don’t want my pictures there, or my words, or anything to do with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It hits a little differently if you’ve ever been a victim of sexual harassment.

    If your put a camera anywhere on your person that surreptitiously records people without their consent, I think anyone has the right to presume you’re a pervert, and act accordingly

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    You’re not gonna believe this lul

    I just feel differently. Another poster mentioned bathrooms though and that’s a very good point. If I ever did have a camera that recorded stuff I see locally like a dashcam, I’d take it off, turn it off, and put it in my bag before I entered a private-public space like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    I guess it depends on where you are from. Data protection is taken relatively seriously where I come from (Germany), and dashcams are heavily regulated (in theory). Dashcam footage must be non-continuous and triggered by specific events, e.g., a collision. It is not meant to be saved or archived without a valid reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I personally don't want to be recorded. I dont have a choice in the matter with it not being illegal, but I'll avoid people who are obviously recording when possible.

    Can't do much about people going out of their way to be discrete, but if they are trying to be discrete those people tend to be people who are aware others don't like it but don't care what others think.

    But I don’t wanna be anywhere near anything connected to Facebook.

    Same. That's pretty much why. It doesn't matter if it isn't a Facebook device. People might be recording to upload to facebook related socials or end up reposting on facebook media socials. Its an uploading sharing social media society we live in.

    I'm not going to go out of my way to stop someone recording. That just makes you stand out more, and end up content. So even if something is legal and people aren't doing anything it doesn't mean they are willingly consenting. They've accepted that's how it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 215 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Honestly, they should not ban them, and then just low-key encourage enterprising attendees to pwn the devices and any attached accounts. That would be delightful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    It’s not 2006 anymore

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    What’s the matter? Jeremy’s macros too fast for ya?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Just saying there’s not a guarantee all versions will be crackable, the cost of having to deal with a bunch of those at the convention in perpetuity doesn’t seem worth the reward of dunking on a minority of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 40 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I prefer the term 'pedofocals'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 35 points 3 months ago (3 children)
    1. Go to Def Con
    2. Wear internet connected camera in bathroom and while typing all passwords
    3. ???
    4. Profit
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)
    1. Have said glasses hacked and the video stream played on large screens around the venue for the duration of the convention
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 32 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    I personally hate the fact that capatilists have fucked our trust so much we can't have augmented reality glasses. I was really looking forward to that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    These camera lenses are nowhere near AR.

    MS HoloLens was the closest we got and it was targeted at businesses. Flopped badly. Died.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    If someone other than Microsoft managed it, it might have gone farther, honestly. Nobody kills a good idea as efficiently as Microsoft.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    MS usually does it before anyone else, releases a product, fails to market it, product dies to exec cutback, then three years later Apple does it and it's amazing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Apples business models has always been about figuring out why something a competitor did flopped then fixing the flaw (either by improving the tech or just better marketing and management). The industry feeds apple as much as they steal from it. It's a slow grown company.

    Microsoft is basically "we were really aggressive back in the day, established a monopoly everybody hates, and cannot figure out how to compete with modern alternatives in a way that won't piss off investors".

    Apple is no saint, but they never lied about what they were doing. Microsoft, on the other hand, deserved everything that happened to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    We need an Open Source version of these glasses. It's the only solution that will work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Open source doesnt solve them having a camera and recording everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    No but at least the data isn't being immediately uploaded to Meta / Google / Apple or whatever for storage and processing.

    If they are Open Source it also opens the door for some kind of control device that a person could have that broadcasts a "Do Not Record" signal that could in theory prevent Open Source glasses from recording in your presence. That kind of thing will never happen with Commercial / For Profit glasses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 30 points 3 months ago

    San Diego ComiCon banned them, and Dragoncon is going to ban them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 28 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    As usual we advertise the Meta Glasses detecting app:

    Glasses Nearby

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    iOS version: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nearby-glasses-original/id6761056896

    I see some others in the iOS app store that claim to detect nearby "smart" glasses via BLE. I have not tested any of them, so I have no opinion on their usefulness, reliability, privacy, etc:

    Nearby Glasses (same name, different app): https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nearby-glasses/id6776279207
    Nearby Lens: Glasses Detector: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nearby-lens-glasses-detector/id6760046620
    NoGlasshole: Glasses Detector: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/noglasshole-glasses-detector/id6760988897
    Nearby Glasses Ray-Ban Scanner (in-app subscription required): https://apps.apple.com/us/app/nearby-glasses-ray-ban-scanner/id6760216782

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    While useful, I would not want my device to be constantly pinging every device around it with wifi, bluetooth, or whatever other radio signal, on the off chance it might catch someone wearing the most groucho marx looking spyglasses on the planet when my own eyes can do that for me.

    If not for the sake of my battery life, then for the same reason why I dont leave my bluetooth or wifi on- less avenues for people nearby to gain easy remote access to my device.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    Yeah, I don't think that's how you'd use it.

    You'd see some weirdo in wayfarers and load up the app to check. Simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    I don't even trust the "only give permission to use [camera/mic/bluetooth/location] while the app is active" setting.

    I would not enter a public space with my phone lit up like a EM Christmas tree, sonar pinging every receiver in sight.

    Let alone giving some rando app the access to every piece of NFC/radio comms on the off chance it can positively identify someone's spy glasses, because that means if they are, ive just given their spy glasses my phone's identifiers, and I'm spending more time near them and more time to possibly end up on some shady company's panopticon server.

    It's like the people suggesting shining a laser into a flock camera, it might destroy a bit of the sensor, but they've also put a highly visible beam of light directly from themselves to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)

    I don't think the app does that, it's scanning for pings, not sending out pings. Listening for signals from Meta glasses.... it's not listening to connect with anything, it's just passively listening. Also it only uses blue tooth... I don't know what you're going on about with radio and internet signals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    So you have to leave bluetooth on, which means your device is broadcasting an active bluetooth signal.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluetooth-wireless-tracking-privacy.html

    If any random shop can use any phone's active bluetooth to track and profile every user that's i side or nearby, I don't want to have bluetooth active when in public. Genuinely not worth it just to fi d some glasshole pervert when my own eyes can do the job without giving away any more of my data. That's what I'm on about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    So you have to leave Bluetooth on

    No, you can spot a weirdo turn blue tooth on and confirm it, then turn it off.

    Look, I don't think this app is for someone like you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Oh I know it isn't, because I trust google as far as I can throw a datacenter.

    But I'm still struggling to see the use of an app that makes you stop and go "let me ask my app to turn on my remote connection feature and search to see if this person is wearing the pervert glasses." instead of using my eyes and going "That guy looks like he's wearing pervert glasses, I'm leaving the area."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 26 points 3 months ago

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    load more comments
    view more: next ›