Good. The only places I expect to see these pervert glasses are:

• In extreme sports for a pov shot (better cameras for the task)
• In film making for pov shots (better cameras for the task too).
• In the trash.

I hate those "pervert glasses" so much. You don't need to have a camera in your glasses. Just wear normal glasses.

Reminds me of Google glass or whatever it was called. It's not that people aren't ready, it's just a bad idea

The real issue in my mind is privacy and autonomy. I want to be able to walk around without the expectation that I'm recorded. I'm male and don't have the same the impact from the creep-factor, and absolutely get it, but the implications are larger than dudes looking at women.

Big difference from a "I am in public and can be recorded" to a "I am in public and I should expect to be recorded". Another big step to "that recording is on a mega-corp server and can be viewed, reviewed, used as training data, cross-referenced, and otherwise processed without my consent because the person recording me consented; I really think this is the the crux, as I can have a tacit approval to be recorded by walking to a store, but I haven't given any approval for my likeness, my position, my emotions, etc to be recorded by walking down a street. A TV show using unsuspecting public will get people to sign waivers granting limited rights to their footage afterwards, or blur faces -- or did -- before retaining and publishing.

I walk into a grocery store and I can expect that they have a CCTV (note the CLOSED CIRCUIT part) system to be able to review what happened in the case of a robbery or whatever. The tech of my childhood meant that the store had a stack of VHS tapes, or maybe DVD/HD/SSD that rotated and could hold (lets way exaggerate) a decade of footage. A decade after I left the store, there was no record I was there -- maybe a receipt if I used a card, but I don't actually know the PCI retention requirements. With cheap storage and 3rd-party cloud-hosted camera systems, the business no longer owns the records of my presence, and has only a data retention 'agreement' with the provider. I didn't agree to my footage being used for any purpose other than the one implicit for safety/loss-prevention by visiting the store. Any use beyond that should be unreasonable search and seizure, but it's not being done by the government, so isn't illegal or something I could sue over.

Very similar situation to Flock/generic-ALPR-esq cameras. The trend used to be that unless you were somehow a person-of-note that you had effective anonymity in public: It took resources to monitor an individual's movements, facial expressions, actions, etc. It no longer does, and so all this is effectively captured and stored in perpetuity. The real problem is that it's everywhere. Good luck finding a grocery store that doesn't have some cloud-provider surveillance. Good luck finding a gas station that doesn't. Good luck even driving to a specific store that isn't recording you constantly because you pass several cameras on the way and some are specifically designed to track your movements.

Bringing it home to the current topic of 'smart' glasses. I haven't consented to being recorded by random person walking down the street with Meta's camera on their face. Meta has no ethical rights to my "content", regardless of whether the owner of the glasses has agreed to give Meta a license to their video as part of setting up the glasses. Ethical vs Legal, but we can keep pushing back.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but this shit is pervasive and won't stop until we force it.

good

imagine being someone who just escaped a very violent situation and they need to stay safe and off the internet

then this shit happens

Cities should be just as afraid of deploying Flock cameras.

It's not just that people are "perverts", it's that they're wearing a camera on their face constantly filming people who have a reasonable expectation to privacy. Even in public most countries would protect that expectation in a lot of cases.

So unless somebody wants to be violently assaulted and their glasses ripped and smashed off their face, then it might be best to not buy them at all, or only wear them in private.

"I saw all these comments about if you wear those glasses you're basically a predator or a creep, and I was like, 'Oh, maybe it's not a good idea to have those,'" said Kujawa. "I didn't really think that through all the way… there are a lot of times where it's not appropriate to wear cameras on your face."

Words to live by.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg remains convinced that smart glasses will eventually replace the smartphone.

Sure, Jan.

Good

Good. Anyone caught wearing those in public should have them knocked the fuck off their faces...

"There are a lot of times where it's not appropriate to wear cameras on your face". When is it ever appropriate? Try walking around pointing your cellphone at people's faces all the time and see what happens.

There is an Android app that looks for the Bluetooth signatures of these glasses and alerts if they are nearby. Hopefully something exists on iOS devices as well.

Edit: The app is called Nearby Glasses and it is available on iOS and Android.

Look, I actually want smart glasses, but there is absolutely no reason for there to be cameras in them.

Just give me a HUD so I can follow transit directions or something. I'm not trying to take creepshots.

What really frustrates me is that governments and big business have normalized surveillance everywhere, and now big business is basically selling wearable spyware, and this is all quite egregious.

But, one of the biggest ways to combat this is with "sousveillance", or the surveillance of oneself. This has proven to be quite effective for motorists who own dashcams, and could be useful other places as well. But AI-peddling billionaires have ruined the reputation of that kind of thing entirely to the point where even open source variants of this tech will be rejected by the public.

So businesses, the government, and the police have the right, and in many cases the obligation to record your every move in public, but you aren't allowed to record your own surroundings in return.

How do we feel about 'pedofocals'?

Specifically identifying the “pervert glasses” as “pervert Meta Ray-bans” would kill these products even faster. Associating Ray-bans with perversion would surely be a deal breaker.

Ahhhh, glassholes.

"A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product."

That's men acting as they intended using a product as intended. There is no plot twist here.

I just don't understand why they even tried. Google already proved in 2013 that people think you're an asshole for wearing things like this, even having the term "glasshole" come about.

I’m never buying Ray Bans again. I don’t want to be associated, fuck Ray Bans for taking that cash.

"A lot of men and their behaviors have ruined this product."

Ruined? They're using it for it's designed purpose...

Good.

Creeps love an always-on camera that you can wear on your face so that it's not obvious that you're filming?

Who could've seen that coming

Others have said it better than I ever could, but in my own words, even IF every person who bought these was the epitome of the highest moral and ethical standards, I would still be uncomfortable due to the way-too-high possibility of them being 'hacked' remotely which would still have the potential to destroy lives

And they should be.

Excellent news