In January, the New York Police Department’s counterterrorism unit sent out a memo warning police officers about a new potential “security and counterintelligence” threat: Ray-Ban Meta glasses.

The memo directed officers to “conduct thorough inspections of all eyewear permitted within inmate cells” and cautioned that people who have been arrested could use these glasses, equipped with small cameras and microphones, to record inside police facilities. The memo cited two examples of such videos posted on social media.

“The ability to covertly record inside a law enforcement or detention facility, could result in a security risk if proprietary information about cell layouts, camera placements, or officer patrol/site protection routines are released,” the memo read.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 32 points 2 months ago

That must be so stressful for them. Poor babies.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 26 points 2 months ago

    Calling it now.

    The first prosecution that involves pervert glasses will originate from someone who catches ICE beating and/or r***** someone to death and leaking it.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Dammit, now I'm mildly tempted to get a pair just to record ICE agents without them realizing, and either changing their behavior or chasing me down to halt the recording.
    But then again, they probably need a Facebook account to even function.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 65 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 206 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    But I thought the surveillance state was good for us? Why, do the police have something to hide?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    "it was supposed to be us who do the surveillance, not zuck!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    There are a great many cases where people have used tech to catch police in a lie, and naturally the police charge them with serious felonies for it. This goes back decades, and in shitoly jurisdictions is just in your face corruption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 140 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    I mean they are providing the theoretical information they would like to hide in the comment why they don't want pervert glasses in the facility. Whether that's an honest statement of concern is different.

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

    The police are our, the public's, servants.

    What proprietary information can they have from us? Literally everything they do and who they are must be transparent and auditable at all times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Lolololololol.

    Ask them how they conduct investigations, specifically electronic, or covert, and what technologies they use.

    Ask if they've used imsi catchers, aka stingrays.

    You'll find they don't have to tell you shit and you are the servant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Remember when body cams were meant to protect the police from accused wrongdoing?

    Now anytime a body cam is not worn or activated it means the cops are planning to or are actively engaging in hurting someone.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Nothing to hide - nothing to fear, right officer?

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

    I've said it before, but if these things weren't hooked up to a corporate cloud they would be great for sousveillance of the police and other authorities.

    There're some out there from other manufacturers that have open source firmware, unfortunately they aren't cheap.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    Unfortunately, using ethical versions will still contribute to the normalization of the non-ethical options, because people won't know the difference at a glance (or care).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 2 months ago

    One of the few things they’d be good for

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago

    Huh, finally a use for Meta smart glasses I can get behind.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago

    Well well well how the turntables

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    “The ability to covertly record inside a law enforcement or detention facility, could result in a security risk if proprietary information about cell layouts, camera placements, or officer patrol/site protection routines are released,” the memo read.

    what a load of absolute shit. the devices could open them up to the legal consequences of their illegal actions and abuse.

    shame meta is focused on equipping the perverts and creeps instead of the blind and exposing corruption and abuse.

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

    Any inmate leaving the facility could describe all of that without glasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    think about all the heinous shit cameras have captured in the last 50 years. now imagine all the heinous shit that has gone unpunished because it wasn't documented for a moment.

    Which would you rather have in a prison experience - your own pov documented, or the word of a bunch of cops/guards?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago

    That’s why they’re worried about them??…. That’s a huge ass obvious red flag if we’ve ever seen one

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    META being used for good? IDK, sounds far fetched...

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    Honestly a valid concern for anybody

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    So it's okay for crooked fuckers to use flock cameras to stalk women but it's not ok for us to record you using smart glasses?

    How about a compromise? You shove the cameras up your ass, and we also get rid of the perv glasses because fuck that.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    For recording in cells, the glasses would be caught by the regular scanners used at various security boundaries including upon entry to custody, at least every time I've been detained. Is that not normal in the US?

    I mean, critical support to Meta I guess. They finally figured out a real use case for their glasses. Albeit a very limited one because there's already hidden cameras people can wear on their body, all of which are easily detectable when they search you before chucking you into a cell.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    That story reads exactly how I would draft a Meta PR campaign to diffuse opposition to those surveillance glasses.

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

    people that weren't panicking about "perverts" and other nonsense already foresaw this usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    no one's 'panicking' about the creeps and pervs, we simply don't accept that these devices are worth the value added.

    hope someone creeps on someone you love one day so you can understand the difference between 'anger' and 'panic'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Isn't that the mantra of the police and secret services everywhere when they demand more intrusive snooping rights?

    So what do they do wrong that they suddenly have something to hide?

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Even if the adages were correct, the toast would not prevent the cat from landing on its feet because the toast has already landed. It's landed on the cat's back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    You could make the same argument that it had landed on the plate therefore you're safe.

    there's always another landing, or more concisely, another opportunity for the butter to hit the floor.

    It's not about the landing; it's about the wet side hitting the ground, making a mess, and making it less appetizing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    The joke is about tying the toast to the cat to make a flying machine. If the toast is on the cat it has already landed. If the toast falls off the cat then the cat can land on its feet and the toast can land butter side up, no paradox

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    If that's what it takes to get regulation for them I suppose.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Who would have thought there might be unintended uses of new technology? Just completely shocking.

    Now just need to wait 2 years for the Chinese knockoff brands for $39.99 that can run open source software and we'll all be Snowden.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    There's already Chinese knockoffs on aliexpress for around that. Most seem to run the proprietary HeyCyan firmware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    "secretly". They aren't exactly subtle.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    Oh, no. That's terrible. Nobody should ever be recording the police........ It might catch them breaking a law or two /s

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago*

    Oh no, that would be going tooo Farr...

    Dead ass I wish the worse for many in power.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    For older users, I quite literally laughed out loud

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    “Oh my god. I laughed out loud. I’m not kidding.”

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

    Nice try, Meta!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Boo hoo, go cry about it, ACAB

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    surveillance for thee, privacy for me. typical.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    won’t be long until these fucking glasses look completely identical to normal glasses. and one day the size of a contact lens

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (-1 children)

    There are other hidden recording devices maybe they already check for all those.

  • source
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    [+] 1 point 2 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (-1 children)

    Someone with a good memory and reasonable drawing skills could get all that info without needing the glasses. Besides that, how many of those items could be discovered with a FOIA request? I'm sure building plans and stuff are filed with the county permitting office.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • 23 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 112 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Ironically this is the one use case I can come up with that would prevent me from judging someone using them

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I kinda feel like thats the point behind putting this in the news tbh.

    You can buy a cheap bodycam for under $100. A mid range option with UHD res and a wider angle lens is like $100-$250.

    The police stuff (like Motorola) is around $400-$700.

    All of these options are cheaper than Meta's glasses and don't come with the explicit purpose of invading privacy for the benefit of Meta.

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

    police frequently "request" you to turn off cameras and get aggressive when you refuse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    They also want you off the sidewalk, away from everything, unable to see what they are doing, so on.

    I'd bet they know what meta glasses look like too.

    Edit: Mobile keyboard typos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Dammit, I’m looking for more reasons to hate them, not the other way around.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Come to think of it maybe we are fighting flock the wrong way.

    What if instead of pushing to remove them, we push to make them open access to all, IE we push to allow anyone to do lookups for a small cost (because that's the way to get flock to walk into the trap). Hail it as a tool for police accountability, and let the police unions shut it down for us.

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

    This has ever been the only solution.

    You absolutely cannot win against a new technology that confers an advantage, without using that technology. The solution to blanket surveillance, is that everyone have access to genuinely total surveillance.

    What if you could see everywhere your politician goes and everyone they meet? Your police officers? The billionaires? All the time? Just like they can you?

    The flock CEO is already watching your little girls swim at the pool. The bully from school became a cop and he can see everything you do, then hide his actions and blackmail you.

    You can't see the CEO dressed up as a swim instructor, jerking it with sunblock. You can't see the cop driving around in his civilian car exploiting the girls who got away in highschool, for blowjobs.

    But you should be able to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    What are they afraid of?

    If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear .

    Right? Right?!?!

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago

    Right, they're worried about security, not evidence of abuse.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago

    Something something surveillance for thee not for me

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    What's that they always say, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about."?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Aftermarket 360 surround cameras and mics for cars are available. Along with Zuckerberg's pervert glasses, this would give you better video of a traffic stop than cops have.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Um, aren't all these assholes supposed to be getting recorded anyway?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I want to come up with a Flock pun for this but it’s too early…

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Leopards .. something .. something .. face.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    They're going to confiscate all glasses now aren't they? Jesus Christ...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I can’t even.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/tech@piefed.world view that post
    [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    Seems like there's one legitimate usecase for these glasses

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    "And suddenly, AFTER THE COPS BITCHED, we'll address the issues y'all have. For public 'safety,' of course."

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Wait,do cops have anything to hide?

  • source
  • What do you mean I can't just turn off my bodycam?

  • source