this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

58959 readers
3659 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Meta sparks privacy fears after unveiling $299 Smart Glasses with hidden cameras: ‘You can now film everyone without them knowing’::These stylish shades may look like a regular pair of Ray-Ban Wayfarers, but they're actually Meta's new Smart Glasses, complete with two tiny cameras and speakers implanted in the arms. The wearable tech was unveiled by Mark Zuckerberg Wednesday at the 2023 Meta Connect conference in Menlo Park, California, sparking a frenzy online.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A quick search on Amazon for "spy camera" finds a bunch of devices small enough to easily conceal inside clothing, built in to pens, and built in to watches. A search for "spy camera glasses" finds exactly that, and most of them are well under $300. We're already well into the era of being able to film everyone without them knowing.

[–] Knusper@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

People aren't a fan of those existing either, but not much you can do about it. At least, you can assume that it's only a tiny fraction of people who own these devices, let alone carry them around, ready to go.
With these glasses, more people will own them and will have them ready to go, on their nose.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Those at least don't automatically sync to Zuck.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They should have used a photo from a webcam or old phone (or a noise filter) to better represent the nighttime quality of the tiny lenses. This one seems to have real DSLR depth of field. The interface is obviously fake, too. As a journalist, I would go the extra mile to take (or license) a shitty picture/video frame with motion blur (and no good-looking subject) and edit it into the supplied promotional material rather than plainly repost that obviously fake shit.

[–] MaxPower@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

stylish

Apparently their definition of "stylish" is vastly different from my definition.

WTF, this bargain-bin-level design.

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I remember when Google glasses came out, people got assaulted for wearing them

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-woman-says-she-was-attacked-for-wearing-google-glass/

Her Facebook post 💀

“OMG so you’ll never believe this but… I got verbally and physically assaulted and robbed last night in the city, had things thrown at me because of some ---- Google Glass haters,” Slocum posted to Facebook.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The trick is now you can’t tell. Should it be illegal? Heck yes. Will it? “Hmm … technology, so important … innovation.. privacy is dead anyway …. terrorism prevention.. “

[–] dependencyInjection@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should it be illegal?

It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public. You’re in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don’t see people assaulting CCTV cameras for instance.

Sure some weirdos might I use it for nefarious reasons but if it didn’t exist they would still be weirdos using something else.

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public.

Depends on your legislation.

Here it's the other way round.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Which 3rd world country? Otherwise you got Brazil (is in some places), Spain, and Switzerland (Gotta love fascist money, money laundering, and nazi gold).

https://www.bobbooks.co.uk/blog-post/10-places-around-the-world-where-photography-is-banned

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

[–] homoludens@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Germany for example. Your source that no consent is required (with exceptions) is kinda wrong on this. It's more of a "it really depends" kind of situation, and people might even have the right to defend themselves if you take pictures of them illegally. German source