cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52022727

Looks like everyone who raised awareness about "Mark Zuckerberg Pervert Glasses" ultimately made a real difference <3

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Meta glasses without camera

So just normal glasses?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I would also expect them to try leaving a mic in there too so they can continue being perverts, just less obviously.

    Edit: yep, sick fucks:

    The camera-free glasses, code-named Luna, will still feature an array of six microphones to allow users to speak to the company’s AI chatbot and its recently-released AI assistant, called Muse. They’ll presumably pick up audio from users’ environments as well, where bystanders may not be aware of the eavesdropping.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    It won't be enough to just remove the cameras and quietly sell them. They're gonna need to somehow make it very clear there is no camera. Through both an ad campaign and by the styling of the glasses. If they don't, no one will trust them, or the people wearing them. But, I suspect they'll try, because it's shameful to publicly admit fucking up so badly. And, billionaires aren't good at accepting shame.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    There was a dude 3D printing brightly coloured clip ons to cover the camera. Not a bad idea.

    Still not touching that shit until someone comes out with one with zero cloud connectivity

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Maybe it's still too early and my coffee hasn't fully kicked in, but what could be done with these without cloud connectivity? I assume the hardware is severely limited due to power requirements and size limitations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    My phone is wicked smaht as they say. It can easily run detection algorithms fully locally. It already knows peoples faces I’ve tagged in my photos, where I am, what’s my agenda etc.

    All the glasses need to do is interface with the phone for all tasks they can’t manage internally.

    A smartwatch, but as glasses if you will.

    Also if I do want any internet/cloud access, I trust my phone to do that in a way I prefer instead of just giving everything to Zuck’s ad machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    I could imagine some uses for non-connected smart glasses. Mechanics who may want to refer to schematics as they work with both hands, without having to disengage and paw through paper or look it up on a laptop? Ppl with various disabilities, run a cheap algorithm to give acoustic cues to blind people?

    Prob is, there's no visual way to know if the devices are cloud connected and spying for FB, or not. And even if not, if they're storing pics locally that will later get sent to a big tech co.

    I miss the pre-IOT days TBH.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I got a pair of Shokz bluetooth bone conduction headphones that I tend to jam next to my prescription glasses and it'd be cool to have that integrated, I imagine this is not going to be even close to that though, just the same perv shit without a camera.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I had two pairs of bose frames when tgey came out and they are (theoretically) fantastic. They sound really good, and you don't have anything in your ears. Shokz are nice, but i hate when they were lound enough that you could feel them vibrate. Anyway, bose frames, too expensive, because both of them broke the same way, tgey are just too fiddly, and the little contact in the hinges broke i think. And no one ever made knockoffs and even bose gave up

  • source
  • parent
  • 20 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Buying meta products is a red flag. Camera or no camera. Mic or no mic.

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

    It makes me gag when people praise the meta quest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    When VR is brought up and people say but Meta costs... I tune them out, since I refuse to buy one. Maybe if it could have the OS fully wiped like flashing GrapheneOS on a Pixel.

    But, that's not the case for Meta products so using their hardware is a big no even if I got it free.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago (16 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    They're trying to flood the market with mimics to manufacture a smokescreen a la "not every set that looks like the versions with cameras actually have them" bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Oh so we not know which banned or not? Sorry, banned all, not my fault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    If cannot tell if camera or not, and camera banned, then ban all because cannot know if banned or not.

    So "smokescreen" would just get entire smoke ban too.

    Like not allowed get dull metal sword or replica in public place. Because cannot know if sharp. So cannot allow smart glasses because cannot know if camera.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Ah, it's a translation issue, my apologies. Regardless, the current regime (anywhere, sadly) won't see this as a blanket statement on the tech itself, and will use it to prop up the newest version of their surveillance "for the greater good" (aka "profits").

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Not germany, we have people work on ban entire product category.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Hunh. Why does your accent sound Russian? 😜

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Nicht Apfelwein oder Glühwein? Wie konntet ihr nur?! 🤷🏼‍♂️🥲

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Ehrlich gesagt mag ich sowieso Whisky mehr. Vodka ist aber geil für Liköre.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Ich hatte selbst mal eine Whiskey-Phase und davor eine Rum-Phase, also verstehe ich dich. Aber wenn du im Moment eher auf klare Spirituosen stehst, könnten dir selbstgebrannter Schnaps oder hochprozentiger Alkohol – aber mit Vorsicht – gefallen.

    Selbstbeherrschung ist unerlässlich, besonders bei Poitín. 🤘🏼

    (Außerdem habe ich mein Deutsch seit '06 nicht mehr viel benutzt, und das auch nur in Frankfurt mit fantastischen Einheimischen, also entschuldigen Sie meine ungenauen Notizen.)😅🙇🏼‍♂️

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

    Hey für 20 Jahre kein Deutsch gesprochen klingst du relativ gut. Respekt.

    (Ich glaube statt Notizen meintest du Kommentare)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Das ist sehr nett von dir, vielen Dank! Ich versuche so viel wie möglich zu üben!

    (Außerdem hatte ich eher an „falsch gespielte Noten“ als Metapher für unpräzise Phrasierung gedacht, aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich das im Deutschen schon mal gesehen/gehört habe.) 😅🤏🏼

  • source
  • parent
  • 14 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 32 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    The camera-free glasses, code-named Luna, will still feature an array of six microphones [...]

    So the glasses will still record innocent bystanders without consent, only without video? That's not much better. The shaming will and should continue.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Obligatory: you have been able to record people without consent since the 80s.

    Should we shame people with phones if their phone has a microphone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    No, we shouldn't shame people for using a device that happens to have a microphone. But we absolutely should shame people who knowingly and flagrantly use recording devices with a complete disregard to other people's privacy.

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

    Honestly, I personally even barely care about the individual people who do this - that's been a thing for nearly 20 years now. Don't get me wrong - secretly filming people is creepy as fuck, and it's rightly illegal without consent in a lot of places.

    But I'm more pissed off about is that beside the individuals, it's also being saved by corporations on an unprecedented and almost inconceivable scale. But it doesn't even stop at that massive privacy invasion - that data is then used, processed and extrapolated to wring every known piece of data out of it, to make a profit for those companies. Plus, since it's stored, they will also use it in the future, in ways we haven't even considered right now.

    All of which without you knowing, or your consent. Creeps are one problem, but imho it's nothing compared to the companies that actually profit from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Obligatory: you have been able to record people without consent since the 80s.

    Where? In my country (Spain) has never been prohibited in public spaces, except in recent years that record the police has been forbidden. ACAB

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    Point being that you didn’t need to ask for consent before any more than now. It might be illegal, but who cares, really?

    Over here it’s legal to record any conversation you are a part of or can “reasonably hear”. So no parabolic shotgun mics allowed 😀

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    In the US that varies by state. California is "two party consent" so you need permission. If you just mean you can do it illegally, tape recorders have been around since way before the 1980s.

    In some countries the camera apps on phones are required to make a shutter noise when you take a picture so it's harder to do secretly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    So now you can buy the pervert glasses and all the public hatred without even getting to be a pervert. Genius.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I had a showerthought about the incident with the gym manager wearing pervglasses - what if it was all kept on a central server, no user access with ~2 week deletion, it's just an employee-worn security camera.

    But then I thought, Deus Ex wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Or they found a way to hide the camera from the users and now you're grabbing video that you don't have access to or even know about. Check out the matte black lens covers that are essentially just windows from one side.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    I heard that these are piracy devices intended for recording copyrighted music!

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 18 points 1 month ago

    Uh... Sunglasses?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I’ll still be calling them “pervert glasses”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 13 points 1 month ago

    Reportedly will have 6 microphones listening for the user and anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Its sad that when we got a new tool, that can actually be really useful for certain people (like people with vision impairment) the best we can do is immediately use it for sex crimes.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/technology@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    No camera? So traditional ray bans?

  • source