r/BrandNewSentence • u/Sebastianlim • 19h ago

"Women are being advised to play copyrighted Disney music when they spot men secretly recording them with Meta glasses."

Post image
18.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

u/RebaKitt3n 19h ago

Well then it’s not quite required.

72

u/InvolvingLemons 18h ago

To be fair, Meta prohibits it and tries harder than you’d assume to impede it. There’s a hardware interlock that, on the latest glasses, is fairly deep such that removing the LED is very likely to either break the glasses core functions or get caught as a tampering attempt by the OS. That second point also impedes 3rd party repairs, so it’s not like they’re doing it exclusively for good reasons.

Src: used to work there. People can and should give them shit where it’s due (the latest lawsuits are deserved and overdue), but the glasses team is genuinely concerned and in an arms race with the modders.

-9

u/boneskull 16h ago

I have genuine concern that the DogBlender 5000 could be used on puppies

20

u/National_Ad_8331 16h ago

The DogBlender 5000 sounds like its use is exclusively for blending puppies. IDK why you're acting like meta glasses could have no conceivable use outside of being a creep. GoPros have been around for ages, and meta glasses are just another evolution towards hands-free recording (can also be used for calling, augmented-reality, live-translation, navigation, etc.)

4

u/aguywithbrushes 12h ago

Because Redditors are a bunch of braindead sheep that just repeat whatever has the most upvotes, regardless of whether or not it’s true. Plus they hate Meta and they need to shit on everything it does, so they can’t entertain the idea that these glasses can have positive uses, therefore they’ve gaslit themselves into believing they’re “creep glasses” and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

3

u/Din_Plug 12h ago

One of my friends has a set and works in a machine shop. He uses them to record what he's doing to update his clients. Neat stuff.

-17

u/boneskull 15h ago

found the creep

11

u/Anthrozil7 14h ago

Found the braindead contrarian.

-7

u/Gatecrasher53 16h ago

But they've warned people to keep their puppies away from it. What else can you expect them to do?

62

u/AlphaBetaSigmaNerd 18h ago

Disabling it isn't abuilt in option. People are doing it themselves or paying someone to disable it for them

5

u/HugePast9455 17h ago

Then it's just not a product appropriate for society.

4

u/AlphaBetaSigmaNerd 17h ago

No argument from me

0

u/Ill-Television8690 16h ago

Just wait until you learn what those camera lenses on the back of everyone's phones are for!

1

u/HugePast9455 16h ago

Wow I'm busted. Out-thought by another Internet genius. No one could ever tell the difference between a smartphone and someone wearing glasses.

3

u/maelstrom51 12h ago

I think the point is that if someone is being a creep in public with the glasses, they can just as easily (and tbh it's a lot more common) be a creep using a cell phone.

Side note, at least in the US you have no expectation of privacy in public spaces, so neither one is against the law unless they're doing upskirts or something (which again would be a lot more common with phones).

0

u/Ill-Television8690 16h ago

It tougher to hide glasses than a phone. So what makes smartphones somehow appropriate products for society?

0

u/HugePast9455 16h ago

Lol what tf is this ball gargling.

Half of people will never recognize "meta glasses" when they see them.

They'll continue to come out in new colors, styles, sizes, and people will modify them themselves.

For the people that do recognize them, half will be fooled by the red warning light not being on, not realizing it's been disabled.

For the people that realize that's possibly, how tf are "glasses tougher to hide than a phone?" What tf does that even mean?

And if you're still too naive or ignorant to see that it's different, just imagine some children's gymnastics teacher wearing meta glasses the whole time unnoticed by the tweens, vs the same guy just pointing his fucking camera at them the whole time.

1

u/Ill-Television8690 5h ago

If you're still too naive or ignorant to see why phones are more problematic than these glasses that everyone recognizes and thinks of as creepy, I'll mention how you don't need to be holding your phone and actively pointing it straight at someone. Teachers have been busted leaving their phone recording in a bag with a hole cut out. How is someone supposed to see what's on the other side of that hole? The existence of a recording device is either a problem or it isn't. And it's easier and much more commonly done to hide an actively recording phone than it is to obscure actively recording glasses. Those can get crushed pretty easily, and come with an "actively recording" warning light that you have to go out of your way to disable, unlike phones...

People who act like these glasses are worse in any capacity than smartphones, simply don't understand what they're talking about.

7

u/GiantLesbian 17h ago

Pretty sure a sharpie could do it.

14

u/zeothia 17h ago

No, the glasses detect that and disable the camera

7

u/psuedophilosopher 16h ago

It's an arms race then. Some nerds with no morals will develop a work around to circumvent the restrictions and sell it to the creeps that want to be creeps, Meta will get some bad publicity and announce a fix to the work around, and some other nerds with no morals will develop a new work around.

2

u/RedditJumpedTheShart 16h ago

Or just use much smaller and better cameras that have been available for decades?

These things are not an issue. Christ look at how many videos you all watch on here where people don't know they are being recorded or having their picture taken.

1

u/SOSpammy 14h ago

This reminds me of the outrage over AirTags where there were already plenty of tracking devices on the market, and they didn't give away their position like AirTags do.

1

u/ryandury 14h ago

we like having hot takes for the most recent example of something we don't like while sorta just forgetting all the things that already do something similar.

1

u/ChaseballBat 14h ago

Yeah they already did... This was started like 5 comments ago lol

1

u/Ryuko_the_red 15h ago

The world is being enshiftified and there will be deep fakes of you and all your loved ones posted without consent at some point because that's the way the world is going. People think it doesn't affect them because they're "Noone"... The world is filled with "nobodies".

1

u/im_thatoneguy 30m ago edited 26m ago

That's actually really cool! How do they do that? Proximity sensor associated with the light to detect obstruction or does the camera itself detect the light bouncing back into the lens? I would have assumed a bit of black nail polish would have worked.

EDIT: Apparently bounced light. That's wild. I guess in v2.0 they'll have to encrypt the light flashing and add flickery pulses or something signed by a private encryption key stored in the hardware's key vault.

2

u/emi89ro 14h ago

I can't think of anyway meta could add a recording light that can't be disabled by someone with a surface level understanding of digital electronics, a pair or wire cutters, and a soldering iron.

I honestly think it should be illegal to sell spy camera devices or distribute instructions on how to diy them.  That still wouldn't make them go away all together as someone who's fairly experienced with tinkering with electronics could still figure our how to make their own if they really wanted to, but if we can at least skill gate them then there will be less of them available 

1

u/AKBigDaddy 4h ago

skill gate them

Only thing I can think of is route power to the camera through the LED, such that if the LED is disabled, the camera cannot receive power. still could be resolved with a soldering iron, but someone comfortable enough to solder a power shunt is comfortable enough to make their own DIY kit like you mentioned. The goal should be to skill gate them. It's disingenuous to say that the only purpose of these glasses is to spy, as there are ample perfectly valid use cases that don't involve nonconsensual recording. And credit where it's due, when Meta was made aware of the (glaringly obvious, should have been caught in early design stage) issue, they did start implementing checks to make this harder. I think they still have a long way to go to 'perv-proof' these things, but I wouldn't write off the product entirely.

1

u/im_thatoneguy 24m ago

Sounds like that's already the case. It detects resistance or something on the LED. The better and also implemented system is to now require the camera to detect some amount of light bleed from the LED. But there are apparently circumventions for that. Which again.. WHY just buy a far superior purpose built spy camera if you need a spy camera.

1

u/AKBigDaddy 18m ago

I agree RE: the spy camera thing- if I were to put on my tin foil hat i'd say because a spy camera is just a spy camera, if you're caught with it, there's no explaining it away. Whereas the meta glasses do have valid use cases.

1

u/im_thatoneguy 14m ago

But like so does a phone in your hand. I've accidentally recorded a few "Spy camera" videos because I accidentally hit the shutter button and started recording an upside video of my leg.

2

u/TonyTheEvil 18h ago

Its done by simply using a sharpie to draw over the light. Not really anything Meta can do about that.

13

u/pandadogunited 17h ago

They can detect that. You have to match the light entering the camera and LED. This usually involves drilling out the light and backfilling with epoxy.