The world has changed a lot in the decade since Google Glass, the stigma around public recording of video is pretty much gone.

Its one thing to record in public, another to stick a camera in someone's face.

I did wear the Wayfarers around and only one person commented on them (a hotel manager who recognized them while checking me in) but I definitely didn't feel comfortable just taking pictures of people without their knowing, ended up returning them because I never got a picture worth sharing anyway.

Besides, if there wasn't stigma they wouldn't have to make it so stealthy.

Not only that. I remember when spyware was considered as bad thing. Now every other page is asking you to by spied on like it is something normal.

> Glasses that let you record people without their awareness / consent?

I think in this instance it's probably "let Meta record people and associate the data to their shadow profiles". Doubly creepy.

> I think the best play here would be to release them without any camera functionality at all, or the connotations will be that weird, sweaty guy that no one wants to sit next to on the subway (see: Google Glass).

Sergey Brin sitting sad in the corner after reading this

> Glasses that let you record people without their awareness / consent?

Thats basically all cameras. AR is coming, whether meta makes it work or not.

There are ways around this, but they either require a massive public backlash, or actual regulation that requires explicit and provable permission before non-anonymised pictures/captures can be taken.

There's dozens of different styles of camera glasses available on Amazon today for a fraction of the price, with completely concealed cameras. I think that train left the station years ago.

Those are also creepy; it does not mean that it takes away the creepiness of this.

And those don't have mass adoption. If Meta wants this kind of device to sell well, they need to distance themselves from them.

well they're not going to be sold to consumers (apparently they cost like 10k-ish to make)...but i'm curious how they'd do motion tracking without cameras though...

I think they mean the cameras shouldn't be available in user-space / app-space. But I still bet there would be some sort of jailbreak tutorial available a couple days after the retail launch.

they have two tiny insects inside the device that are attracted and trying to bite the pupil in your eyes, by measuring their orientation they can figure out where you're looking

WiFi 7?

If they do it like their current Ray Ban glasses, there's an LED on the front that lights up when it's recording. People will no doubt disable it though.

you can't disable it, and it doesn't really matter anyway because nobody seems to notice it. I have videos of all my friends the first time I run into them using the glasses, and none of them realize that I'm recording them unless I stare at them for long enough without moving.

You can't disable it in software.

You can put a piece of tape over it, fill it with black nail polish, let the smoke out of the LED, or otherwise keep the light from being visible.

This particular LED not only emits light but works in reverse as well: it functions as an ambient light sensor. Recording is paused if the LED and camera inputs have a significant difference in detected light levels.

Huh, that’s a good trick! I figured it was like the AirTag speakers.

Props to Facebook for making it less circumventable.

> Glasses that let you record people without their awareness / consent?

I get it, it's icky. I feel the same way. Nevertheless, this is already a thing.

As someone who does not wear these things; it is not fine.

Yep, creepy, and illegal in some places.

heh, it's 2024

I don't think that makes a difference. I realize since you wear these things it is in your interest to make it seem like that people caring about privacy is living in past, but it really is creepy and if I saw someone wearing these in public I would not be thinking the world of them. YMMV.

> I would not be thinking the world of them

There are few things I could care less about than what some nobody I’ll ever see again thinks.

I do not think it is a safe assumption that everyone who thinks those glasses are a creepy invasion of privacy are exactly the people who you will never see again.

Why not? I was replying specifically to your context.

>if I saw someone wearing these in public

If you specifically, who I don't know and likely never will saw me wearing something like this in public and did not approve, my care factor would be nil is what I meant.

If I was to wear these in a less public setting, where perhaps I have to interact with you on a regular basis, sure, my opinion may be different.

My apologies if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

That's not to say I would wear something like this or use it, but if it's what comes to pass, eh.

Seems to miss the forest from the trees if it is thought about in terms of one person caring or not

I would think they are cool

Yeah, but people who brandish their phones know that they're performing the act of recording. Glasses that record are exactly not that.

it's better with glasses actually as you have to stare at what you're recording (whereas hidden cameras and phones can record without you realizing that)

No, it isn't. That gives the social cue "I am watching you". It explicitly, intentionally avoids giving the cue "I am recording you". It is misleading. Yes, there are other ways to mislead. That doesn't excuse this one.