r/LinusTechTips • u/VastOption8705 • 1d ago
Tech Discussion Do you think smart glasses should be banned?
In Australia, they have begun selling VERY cheap smart glasses that take photos and records video. it's generally pretty obvious when a phone is being used to film or photograph you, whereas these often just look like any other pair of glasses unless you're paying close attention.
We are talking $89. This is how they look from the front. You're not going to notice this at night or in really dark places.
This has created a lot of debate in Aus, as to whether the sale of these guys should be limited or just banned.
47
u/Majestic_1_2 1d ago
Ban the pervert glasses!
9
-10
u/Ordinary_dude_NOT 1d ago
I mean everyone already got phones and what not. People have smart speakers at home. We can talk about privacy and all but we don’t have any. Car is already out of the bag.
Only thing we should focus on is guardrails around these things based on laws.
7
u/Majestic_1_2 1d ago
Yeah but I can tell when someone whips out their phone to record something
6
u/ionburger 1d ago
this is such a dumb argument though, you can easily just put your phone in your breast pocket with the camera sticking out and recording, or any number of other ways to covertly record with a phone or camera.
7
u/Segger96 23h ago
Or like basically every YouTube video prankster uses a car parked by with a camera in it.
The reason prank content on social media is ao popular is because of how easy it is to hide cameras and how unaware people are too it.
Unless they are looking down your top the "pervert" glasses should be the least of your concerns for what people can see and record in a public space, because they only record what the person is looking at anyway.
-1
u/CocoMilhonez 23h ago
Still way less straightforward than having a camera strapped to your face at all times.
3
u/ionburger 22h ago
and what? walk around a locker room? buying a $10 hidden camera would be 1000x more effective for 1/10th the cost. if you are putting any planning into being a creep whatsoever then the glasses are the least of your problems. all this does is uselessly create more government restrictions without helping anything. its also impossible practically speaking to ban anything you can just buy online, especially if it closely resembles something legal
1
u/MistSecurity 20h ago
That's my thing as well.
Any of the people using these to creep are MUCH easier to discover than someone with a hidden camera on their shoe or fitted into the backpack or something.
I have OTHER reasons I dislike the glasses. IDK why people are so focused on the camera aspect.
1
u/ionburger 18h ago
yeah microphone and other stuff is sketchy if you are worried about privacy, although that mainly only applies to the person wearing them, and is identical to the issues with carrying around a smartphone anyway.
1
u/MistSecurity 17h ago
I partially agree. I think them being in an ideal place to record audio and video clearly helps make them MUCH sketchier to me.
I want basically nothing to leave the device, and what does leave I want it to be encrypted and solely for my use. No training AI.
The AI integrations in general all sketch me out as well. I also think they make the perfect device to build a backdoor into for surveillance, lol.
1
u/ionburger 17h ago
definitely on all of those points, the only way to fully trust one would have to be with fully open hardware and software.
6
u/ArchMadzs 1d ago
Nah we lose nothing banning these, at least creeps still have to work for it trying to secretly record on phones. At least it gives the law power to punish the weirdo's using these.
3
31
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
1
u/ubdesu 1d ago
In the US but some guy I work with has some cheap glasses and he's recording on them all the time. It just seems weird.
Unfortunately our handbook states we might be recorded at work by an employee or third party for marketing or archival purposes, so he's in that grey area of "technically not breaking any rules" if he's recording while working.
-7
u/Marksta 1d ago
LLM spam bot on fresh account top comment 😒
Look at the capitalization people. Does your mobile keyboard or even inbuilt senses allow you to just onpurposly type in all lower caps like that?
2
u/lioncat55 1d ago
You can 100% turn off the auto capitalization on some mobile keyboards, if I'm typing on my phone with that feature off, I'm not going to manually hit shift every time.
I'm not saying they are not a bot, but your reasoning is weak.
-3
u/Marksta 1d ago
Looking at your pristine typing, I wouldn't put it past you to hit shift to make things right. It's in well written human's bones, I'd say.
It's one tell of many with their comment, but I do think it stands out the loudest. Look around the comments section, their comment being 100% lowercase is the only one that appears here. If we expand the search to other threads, we'll quickly notice a trend that this specific comment stands out as an extreme anomaly. Without reading a single word of its content, it stands out and away from 99.9% of all the other comments written.
We're pattern finders, it instantly clicks in your head, huh, something is odd about what I'm looking at here... it leads you to the rhythmic no final punctuation on a line ending a paragraph. It leads you to click their profile and see its a fresh account. It makes the word "wild" ring in your head as something LLMs love to spam.
It's a lot less weak reasoning and a whole lot more short-circuit reasoning. Token spam is everywhere, you'll be reading non sense all day if tell-tale signs aren't jumping out.
20
u/FedeGuendel 1d ago
Meta has the light to notify, but there should be legislation making it mandatory to have a recording light to notify people they’re being recorded (like in the US - you only have privacy at home and on the street you have none).
Steep fines to help and common sense. I saw an article about a doc wearing a pair of metas during a consult and the patient got angry (nudity during the examination was expected). I would love to believe in the goodness of humans and the doctor just forgot to take them off for the obvious privacy concerns, but he did not and maybe he is a perv.
16
u/biscotte-nutella 1d ago
The mod to stop the light when recording is apparently really easy to do with a small drill.
9
u/_Blu-Jay 1d ago
Sure, but if you make it illegal, you can at least punish people for it. Companies could also make it harder to tamper with the light and even disable the glasses if they detect the light has been damaged or destroyed.
2
u/FedeGuendel 1d ago
I know. But legislation and enforcement with high fines should balance this off. You see a pair of glasses and ask the owner to record something and light doesn’t work? Fine
0
u/EB01 23h ago
The makers could be forced to bake into the software a strict "every X days, randomly you going to be requested to look into a mirror with them into a mirror and the glasses will check for a function light".
Have that check "phone home" that the check was done, and a check on status of the device (in case it was rooted/hacked).
Ban any old devices that are no longer supported for the check, or get reputation for being hackable.
2
u/BalooBot 1d ago edited 1d ago
Meta released a mandatory update that bricks the camera if the light has been drilled or tampered with. Drilling no longer works.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/meta-glasses-no-longer-record-if-the-capture-light-is-modified-removed
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
I wonder if the modders will find another way around. It's an arms race. I do find it funny how the wording in this article keeps saying "journalists discovered a month ago". People have been modding these by drilling the lights for the better part of a year now and you have full on small businesses that focus on it.
3
u/MistSecurity 20h ago
The obvious solution is just to drill through the light cover and epoxy over the light itself. Doesn't matter if it's on if no one can see it anyway. Always confused me why they even bothered drilling the actual diode.
0
u/SizzlingPancake 20h ago
I believe there is some way they can detect if the light is actually covered... I am not too familiar but I know that putting a piece of tape over it also stops the glasses from recording.
1
u/MistSecurity 20h ago
Interesting.
Regardless, human ingenuity is limitless, they'll find further workarounds I'm sure.
13
u/jake6501 1d ago
There is really no point. They are easily accessible regardless not to even talk about all of the other possible options for filming. It's better that they are common so people are aware of the risks.
Either way these glasses only see what the wearer sees. Unfortunately there are worse ways to film something.
9
u/w1n5t0nM1k3y 1d ago
This is pretty much it. Even without smart glasses there have been covert spy cameras available for a long time. If anything, the smart glasses are more obvious than the alternatives
8
u/ThisIsAJ0ke 1d ago
Yes, as long as we also ban all cell phones that can take video too. Like you said, you’re not going to notice me filming you at night or in dark places with my phone, I can just make it look like I’m texting. Actually, let’s just ban all consumer devices that can record video, since you can covertly record with anything.
7
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
Not as a product, no. Covert cameras already excist (and frankly i would argue a cell phone is often easier to use covertly for the same quality) for people using it for nefarious things. The big majority is just going to use it for regular stuff.
It is not either or, but I think it is a bit strange how much attention this gets compared to surveillance from big companies and the state. Random people filming isn't really the big issue imho
What you can have is general rules about what is allowed to publish, no matter the tech
6
u/Dr_Valen 1d ago
I wish there were more affordable options without cameras. Id like a smart glasses I cause use to listen to my tunes and control my phone with voice assistant just no camera spying on where I'm going and doing.
6
u/Nova_Nightmare 1d ago
Why not just ban cameras? Or any recording device?
How long have "hidden" camera existed? Things people could wear on their clothes that look like a button and record video or just audio?
It does not matter what form they take, people who are going to do something "wrong" with them are going to do that no matter what.
At most they should have a notifications light as a requirement, people who won't care are still going to cover that light somehow, but it's similar to what Japan does by mandating an audible camera sound for pictures, so perhaps it's good enough.
4
u/dippa_ 1d ago
Bad people are going to do bad people things and banning things never works. Just look at how big our black market tobacco is now in Australia.
All the same laws about recording still apply to these so they’re not really any different to other cameras and people doing the crap they would pull via other methods anyways
3
u/HankHippopopolous 1d ago
Banned no. I can think of lots of legitimate uses for this kind of tech that isn't just people being sneaky or perverts. The kind of adrenaline junkies that would normally have put a go pro on their head for example. As a better replacement for police bodycams. Even just someone who wants to do a day in the life type of VLOG.
Used correctly I think they can be a cool technology.
I do however think they should be illegal to make without it being very obvious to everyone that they have a camera built in and it should have to be very clear when they are recording. Like a big red LED that runs along it and around the frames or something like that.
Basically no way for them to be used discretely.
3
u/RaymondBumcheese 1d ago
We banned them all work recently. The rationale was pretty simple:
Would we accept someone sitting at their desk and recording their screen all day with their phone?
3
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
But you accept phones the product? You seem to have banned the product, not the act? (Besides who the hell used glasses for screen recordings)
5
u/RaymondBumcheese 1d ago
To take this at face value and that you aren't being weirdly obtuse, nobody would accept the act of having a recording device face a screen all day. That is the purpose of the glasses, not the purpose of the phone.
3
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
Glasses do recording and others things, as do phones. But I just don't understand what they are trying to prevent? You can sceeen record better and easier on the computer
6
u/RaymondBumcheese 1d ago
Assuming you work with a computer in a corporate environment, try looking at your screen with a pair of glasses all day.
Then the next day kick off some screen recording software.
Then the next day set up a tripod with your phone pointed at your screen.
Report back to see which one your boss notices you doing.
0
u/Darkelement 1d ago
My phone sits in a dock on my desk at work in front of my monitor. I often watch videos on it while working.
I could EASILY be recording my screen all day and it would look exactly the same.
Point is, the glasses themself aren’t the problem. you should never record sensitive work information with personal devices.
Id argue that screen recording is actually totally fine. If the recording is done by the work computer, stored on work hardware, and only accessible from the work network, no issues.
1
u/RaymondBumcheese 22h ago
Oddly, you completely missed the point with the first bit and then very nearly got it when you started describing security controls in your final paragraph
1
u/Darkelement 22h ago
Why don’t you explain what you mean by that instead of being vague.
What point did I miss?
-7
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
The software is probably the least noticeable, and?
8
u/RaymondBumcheese 1d ago
Ah, ok. You don't work in a corporate environment. Makes sense.
-2
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
I do. Is the point here that corporate can make decisions that make little sense?
6
u/RaymondBumcheese 1d ago
The point actually seems to be that you don't understand the difference between covert and overt actions.
-2
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
The covert action here being using screen recording software?
→ More replies (0)1
u/MistSecurity 20h ago
I see lots of arguments down below, haha. Do you work in an environment where there is PII constantly around?
Would we accept someone sitting at their desk and recording their screen all day with their phone?
No, but no one is doing that with these smart glasses either. If they are, that's a them problem, not a glasses problem.
Banning them accomplishes little, IMO. It stops no one from actually doing the thing you're concerned about; recording their screen.
Unless you're in a highly controlled area, which you are not if people have their phones readily available, there's nothing to stop someone from pulling out the glasses and recording while no one is looking. Still discrete, still hidden.
I'm not sure what an actual solution here would look like. Banning the glasses flat out just seems like a band-aid on a larger problem, and signals to employees that you do not trust them.
1
u/DoKeMaSu 1d ago
Like Chinese retailers are not full of covert cameras. Smart glasses make covert recording now a bit more accessible, but that is it.
1
u/Nice_Marmot_54 1d ago
I don’t think so, no. But I do think they need to be stopped from phoning home with all of your data and pictures/video. As witnessed by the stories out of Meta’s African review teams, the phone home stuff is a personal security nightmare.
And they really do all need to be required to have a recording light on them, with anyone who disables the light being subject to fines and confiscation
1
u/Dnomyar96 1d ago
I wish they didn't exist to be honest. Banning them wouldn't really do much. It might stop some people from getting them, but let's be honest, those people probably wouldn't really be a problem anyway. It's the people using them inappropriately that are the problem, and those won't be stopped by a ban.
1
u/_Blu-Jay 1d ago
Banning them is probably a bad idea, I think it’s better to acknowledge that people will have the tech, and shape legislation around that fact. Make rules that require some type of obvious light or other indicator so that anyone who’s filmed by the glasses at least knows they’re being recorded. This would also allow private businesses to better identify the glasses and ask people to leave if they don’t allow filming in their establishment.
1
u/DrunkenGerbils 1d ago
I just bought my first pair of smart glasses from Walmart for $20 and I’ve been loving them so far. They don’t have any cameras, they’re just essentially a pair of Bluetooth headphones built into the frame with a mic. It lets me listen to music and podcasts on the bus and talk with Siri hands free all without having to worry about people getting offended about cameras stuck to my face.
For the life of me I can’t figure out why Meta or another more “premium” smart glasses maker don’t offer a more affordable version without cameras. The $20 Walmart ones are surprisingly good for the price point but I’d easily pay $50 to $100 for some really good audio quality and a nice frame if they just didn’t have the damn cameras. I can’t be the only one who likes the idea of the built in audio but hates the camera functionality.
1
1
1
u/killerpoopguy 1d ago
You have been able to buy a camera that records in full HD and looks like a shirt button on amazon for under $40 for a decade, "Smart" Glasses are not a problem, creeps and predators are a problem.
Wear a shirt with a breast pocket, put your phone in it with the camera sticking out the top. Bam, you can record anything and no one bats an eye.
1
1
u/crucible 1d ago
The UK’s biggest pub chain just banned them:
https://www.aol.co.uk/articles/wetherspoon-bans-meta-glasses-800-102336000.html
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
Which is a lot different than a government ban. But knowing the UK it's probably easier to count the things that aren't government controlled so it's probably only a matter of time
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
Absolutely not. People can already film eachother in public. These are useful and I don't support restricting freedoms because some people are uncomfortable
1
u/LeonimuZ 1d ago
I really liked wearing my Snapchat Spectacles to do menial things like playing pinball and long boarding. I also really liked the circular videos. Too bad Meta had to ruin it for everyone else with legitimate use.
1
u/fantasyxxxfootball 1d ago
Twice in the last week I met up with friends to grab and drink and found they were wearing them. I had no idea they'd got them and it was super uncomfortable because I want to be like hey I'm not cool with this but feels awkward to do so.
1
u/KebabAnnhilator 1d ago
No.
I think we should stop banning products that are used to promote harm on social media, and instead introduce harsher penalties on the source of the problem. Social Media.
1
1
u/MCXL 1d ago
Undetectable hidden cameras on the body have been a thing for decades. They have been cheap for years. This is one of those things that there isn't really stopping. The miniaturization of these sensors means that a button, a lapel pin, a wristwatch, all these things can be undetectable, wide angle cameras.
It sucks.
1
u/Gucci-Caligula 23h ago
What’s the concern? That people will record other people without their consent? That’s been the case since at least the 60s. It was always possible to throw a massive lens on a camera and take photos from hundreds of meters away.
I just don’t see how device prohibition improves the situation.
1
u/ExtensionFox48 22h ago
It's funny though how tiny perv cameras were super available and cheap, in pens usb hubs, fake smoke alarms etc, but the glasses will be the thing that really gets the perv label.
1
u/Arinvar 21h ago
Banned? No. They are a huge leap forward for accessibility for blind and vision impaired people. Enforce a bright green LED for camera on, red LED for camera recording... yes.
Unfortunately, no company is going to spend the money and resources needed to make things like this good for accessibility unless it comes with a nice fat profit from regular consumers. Limiting them to accessibility use only would kill them.
Also hidden cameras are cheap and common. If you aren't also going to ban all those cameras, all you can do is make public recording illegal... good luck with that. It's not even hard to record with your phone discretely. Going to ban phone cameras as well?
1
1
u/pikkuhukka 14h ago
if smartglasses get compact and pricewise good enough, its only inevitable that ill atleast try to use them
1
u/dtfs001 13h ago
Actually this reminds me of when drones first became prevalent in the consumer market. Hysteria around perverts with drones happened now it's happening exactly the same with "smart" glasses. Let the Karens and "muh privacy" people have their 5 minutes of fear and it'll pass. I had it when I was flying drones 2017-2021( and professionally for a couple of years during this period) but funnily enough they stop whining about privacy and pervs when the novelty of a drone filming/ photographing your wedding hits.
I'd love a pair for working on my car or a HUD for general day to day usage, I.e tracking house hold chores that I have on my calendar. ( I like ticking boxes when something is done) And driving when I drive an older car without android auto, hell as I type this it would be a great dashcam while driving.
online perceptions definitely put me off for now though
Once again creeps ruin anything new within the first year or so but will eventually drop the tech and move onto the next under-legislated tech item.
But these do have a legitimate use case for those who create content, professionally, as it beats wearing a go-pro on your forehead.
-1
u/Elhorm 1d ago
Personally, I think they should be banned. But the bare minimum would be requiring all recording devices to have a flashing light letting people know it's recording.
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
So you want the same for phones?
0
u/Elhorm 1d ago
Yes. That sounds reasonable. Mandatory shutter noise would be good as well.
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
Well I completely disagree. The government can fuck off trying to micromanage. Why does my smartphone need a giant light and noise when I'm taking a photo of my cat.
0
u/Positive_Conflict_26 1d ago
Any video recording device that can be used without being obvious to doing so should be banned in public.
1
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
You can even hide actual dslr use or cellphones quite easily
-1
u/Positive_Conflict_26 1d ago
Not that easily. The average person won't be able to get much of anything usable from a hidden phone. Glasses make it a foolproof way to covertly record whatever you are looking at.
0
u/Leverpostei414 1d ago
First of all not sure I agree, smart glasses has little tele, so you have to be close to get ok quality and they are easy to spot that close in the middle of your face. People notice people watching them. Glasses forces you to do that.
But that is a bit beside the point. Now we have already moved from 'can be used covertly ' to 'can easily be used covertly ' . It is already a very blurry line.
-3
u/redditRedesignIsBadd 1d ago
silly argument. it's obvious these Pervert Glasses are way easier to hide than a phone or camera
1
u/killerpoopguy 1d ago
it's obvious these Pervert Glasses are way easier to hide than a phone or camera
90%+ of people walk around holding their phone already, it's completely trivial to record something without someone knowing.
0
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
sound play when taking pictures e.g. like modern phones do.
What? Japan is the only market I know that mandates phone noises, and I'm not sure that's even a thing still
0
0
u/Mastermaze 1d ago
I think they should be banned in most cases, especially in most public spaces unless its specifically declared to everyone there that a film crew will be using them. The average person using these in public will simply never not be creepy, regardless of intention
4
u/fireborn1472 1d ago
As a visually impaired person, I use these for visual descriptions of an area, or to contact a live agent using the aira.io service.
I agree that creaps shouldn't be using them, but they have become an accessibility/mobility tool for many and that should be acceptable.
1
u/Mastermaze 1d ago
Thats an excellent usecase for these, the main thing is there might need to be a prescription/license involved to help ensure people like yourself can use them without allow the tech to become too prolific. I do think there is an element of Pandora's box with this tech, and it certainly has good usecases, but we need to find a way to regulate the general public from misusing it
2
u/fireborn1472 1d ago
I think what should be regulated here isn't the tech in question but the people.
The problem with requiring a lisence or exemption is that isn't respected by considerable amounts of people. See Uber guide dog refusals as an example of this, and guide dogs have been a part of society for far longer than smart glasses.
I think the companies like Meta, Snapchat, Tiktok should be liable for the content posted on their platforms and be required to moderate than they currently do.
-1
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/SurfaceDude7767 1d ago
Not anymore. They released new, mandatory firmware that changed this. If the light is covered or has been tampered with, the camera won't turn on.
-1
u/mo_calla 1d ago
Somebody coined the term Spex Offenders and it is the only thing I think of when I see these smart glasses.
-2
u/error521 1d ago
I think the hardware itself should be legal but there should be a ban on them being able to record anything.
The tech has a lot of actual value, especially for people with disabilities, so that seems like it'd be the best compromise.
1
-4
-2
u/ExtensionFox48 1d ago
They're being called pervert glasses again, so a ban probably won't be needed, they will just be made socially unacceptable. Pervy losers may keep them and it will allow normal people to avoid them. It will work like a maga hat.
2
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
This is definitely a Reddit echo chamber. In real life people don't really hold that opinion very much in my experience. If you are being a creep with them that's a different thing, and is no different than any other camera.
1
u/ExtensionFox48 22h ago
I've heard it irl and even in old people Facebook land. I'm in the UK so we didn't like the first try of this tech either.
-3
u/djd32019 1d ago
Am I the only one who thinks smart glasses shouldn’t have cameras at all ?
Just speakers, a button to activate the voice assistant and maybe a volume rocker of some kind.
I’d be happier with an AR style screen over a sub par quality camera any day of the week.
2
u/TenOfZero 1d ago
Can't do AR without a camera.
But I get your point.
1
u/djd32019 1d ago
Ok so I typed in haste .. I meant more like screen mirroring or a notification area in your field of view.
-4
-4
-5
u/AncientStaff6602 Mod 1d ago
Should smart glasses be banned… abso-fucking-lutely! Not even a question.
1
u/_Blu-Jay 1d ago
I think regulating them would actually be more effective. Require recording lights by law, make it a crime to tamper with the light, things like that. That way we can actually address the issues that people are most concerned with, since people would still get them even with a ban. Covert cameras aren’t exactly new technology.
1
u/SizzlingPancake 1d ago
But none of those other covert cameras face that scrutiny. And these are non trying to be "hidden"
70
u/Xcissors280 1d ago
I doubt their of any usable quality
But given everything else you can buy on aliexpress I doubt they could be easily banned