Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Privacy Slashdot.org

DEF CON Bans Meta-Style 'Pervert Glasses' (theregister.com) 88

Posted by BeauHD from the no-spyware-on-your-eyewear dept.
DEF CON has banned "Meta-style glasses with recording capabilities," with no exceptions being made even for those with prescription versions. "Be sure to pack non-violating eyewear if you need them," DEF CON said. The Register reports: [The conference's official photo policy] has not been updated since 2023, predating the recent growth of camera-equipped eyewear developed by Meta with EssilorLuxottica under its Ray-Ban and Oakley brands. It states that public photography is permitted but with several caveats that essentially prohibit capturing the image of anyone, except on-stage speakers, unless the photographer obtains consent from the subject(s). "Love to see a 'no pervert glasses' policy at DEF CON," said EFF director of cybersecurity Eva Galperin.

DEF CON Bans Meta-Style 'Pervert Glasses' More | Reply

DEF CON Bans Meta-Style 'Pervert Glasses'

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:4, Funny)

    by zurkeyon ( 1546501 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:04PM (#66261282)
    Won't be hacking any of those then. ;-)

  • Sure, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:12PM (#66261312)
    Can I still wear them to the strip club?

    • As long as they are the only thing you are wearing sweetheart.

    • Can I still wear them to the strip club?

      Probably not.

      Private property owners have the right to control photography and video recording on their property. Most clubs have policies against it. They are posted on a big sign by the door. Right next to the bouncer.

      You might get stopped at the door. You might get away with it. You might get asked to leave. You might get thrown out. You might get beat up. You might lose your toy in the scuffle. You might get arrested for causing a disturbance of the peace. You might get sued for any video you

      • It was a rhetorical question. Most strip clubs tell you you're not allowed to pull your phone out, obviously because every phone is now a video recorder. The first succesful pervert glasses will be the ones nobody can tell are pervert glasses.

  • But LEDs are still allowed, right? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:21PM (#66261330) Homepage Journal

    Is it ok if I show up in regular glasses, but where an always-on LED is attached to the one of the corners? (I understand pervs are falling out of popularity, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the whole aesthetic!)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Crap - I just spent my last mod point a few posts back. Somebody please upmod this eloquent comedian!
    • Do they still sell Borg costumes?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I did some experiments with IR LEDs to try to screw up facial recognition cameras, but the issue is that you need a lot of power for them to be effective. At least people are making frames you can retrofit without them looking obviously home-made now.

  • I really don't see how anyone can call these " pervert " glasses unless the person wearing
    them is crawling around on the floor trying to do upskirt stuff . . . . .

    Simply being filmed / photographed is pretty much the daily normal these days.
    With or without your consent, it happens all the same.

    Think about how much surveillance footage of you there is by simply leaving your home
    and practically going anywhere. Literally everyone and their brother holds a smartphone
    which has a camera in it. I can sit quite som

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      Because:

      1. Rhetoric.
      2. We know what kind of people will want to wear glasses that record 24/7.

      • Wait! I know this one! It's people who don't want cops and security guards to be the only ones with evidence of the crimes committed by cops and security guards, right? It baffles me that a supposedly educated crowd of "tech experts" thinks that only the corporations and government should have the advantage, while the common citizen should be denied the same capabilities at all cost. News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded. If you don

        • Wait! I know this one! It's people who don't want cops and security guards to be the only ones with evidence of the crimes committed by cops and security guards, right? It baffles me that a supposedly educated crowd of "tech experts" thinks that only the corporations and government should have the advantage, while the common citizen should be denied the same capabilities at all cost.

          At Defcon you don't film the crowds with any cameras period. This isn't just some random exception for glassholes.

          When one is acting as a glasshole crowdsourced data being collected mostly helps corporations and governments. It would be one thing if people were developing their own surveillance networks and used them to level the playing yet here no such thing is even in play. All these systems are doing is seeking to crowdsource mass surveillance for the benefit of corporations.

          News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded.

          Being in a public space i

          • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

            by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 )

            "At Defcon you don't film the crowds with any cameras period."

            That's wild! I had no idea cell phones and laptops were not allowed at DEF CON! Herp Derp.

            "Being in a public space is not consent and just because you gather information from public areas or even public airwaves does not grant one carte blanch to do as they please."

            A modicum of research [acludc.org] could have overcome your phenomenal ignorance on this matter. Let me guess. You are a huge believer in the US Constitution ... you just never actually learned eve

            • At Defcon you don't film the crowds with any cameras period.

              That's wild! I had no idea cell phones and laptops were not allowed at DEF CON! Herp Derp.

              Nobody is talking about banning cell phones and laptops from Defcon. What they very much are saying is not to record the crowds.

              A modicum of research could have overcome your phenomenal ignorance on this matter. Let me guess. You are a huge believer in the US Constitution ... you just never actually learned even the most basic thing about what it says about Freedom of Speech. Amiright?

              I don't understand how one can cite a know your rights link designed for encounters with police officers and somehow think this addresses the issue.

              For example wiretapping is a felony even when the people speaking are doing so in public. Here is a more realistic perspective from people who know more about freedom of speech than you do.

              "we often hear a familiar refrain: "you don't

              • I'm not going to waste a lot more of my time, since you clearly have a serious case of Dunning Kruger. The "know your rights" article is about *your* *rights*, not police officers. Audio recording is not video recording, and in a few states (but not most) you need all party consent to record *audio*, but *never* video. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You have *zero* expectation of privacy with regard to video recording in public, and that is true in every single state as well as in P

                • I'm not going to waste a lot more of my time, since you clearly have a serious case of Dunning Kruger.

                  Dunning Kruger the Internet meme is discredited nonsense.

                  "Our results supported the third hypotheses by confirming that (a) peoples' self-assessed competence generally accords with their demonstrated proficiency and (b) peoples' frequencies of self-assessed underestimation of their competence are similar to their frequencies of overestimation."
                  "However, our study refuted two tenets of the second hypothesis by showing that (a) no strong propensity exists toward overconfidence in self-assessment ratings and (

                  • "Dunning Kruger the Internet meme is discredited nonsense."

                    A single study doesn't discredit it. Confirmation bias much?

                    "Meta glasses also have capability of recording audio and your statement "News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded." does not stipulate a specific modality."

                    This makes it clear that you have no idea what prior restraint means. You consent to video recording, and in most states you also consent to audio recording. Regard

    • Usually it means they're an insufferable influencer (or believe themselves to be an influencer) and that's reason enough to hate them. Normal people don't go around wearing a camera on their face, hoping for something to happen in their mundane day-to-day life that will go viral on their social media accounts.

      • Do you have a dashcam in case some idiot cuts you off in traffic then tries to sue you? If you really think that the only reason to have a recording of what goes on around you in public is to be an "influencer" you aren't very wise.

        • Somehow, I think if you're worried about your safety while out in public, wearing a pair of "pervert glasses" isn't going to have the effect you're hoping for. I'd recommend the good ol' fashioned 2A approach instead.

          As for dash cams, I personally don't own one, but also don't see anything particularly creepy about something that stays in your car mostly records footage of the exterior of other vehicles.

          • You clearly lead a sheltered life, and you are an idiot if you think everyone carrying a gun makes people safer. Even if it did that is completely beside the point, not only because there are many, many places and situations where you can't carry a gun, but also because you can't just shoot people when your life isn't in immediate danger. If you believe that whenever a cop or security guard violates your rights you can't just shoot them, then expect to find yourself in prison soon. That's not how the seco

            • My point is that in the extremely unlikely event you find yourself in a situation you can't just de-escalate and walk away from, a pair of glasses with a camera that records three minute clips isn't going to do much good.

              LEOs intent on disregarding your rights aren't going to say "Aww, shucks, this guy's got a camera. Guess we'll just have to let him go!"

              I'm also really not seeing how owning a pair of "pervert glasses" (yeah, I just had to say it again) is supposed to help the case of someone accused of se

              • You keep mentioning this imaginary 3 minute hard upper limit, while also trying to change the topic from if it is acceptable to record to how much benefit there might be. Trying to blur the issue isn't going to work with me. You can't say it's wrong to record ... but only because of some imaginary 3 minute hard upper limit. You weren't arguing that it would be fine if you could record more than 3 minutes, but just of somewhat limited use at the moment.

                Perhaps you are in favor of a law against them unless i

                • You keep mentioning this imaginary 3 minute hard upper limit

                  The 3 minute clip limitation is right here on their site. [ray-ban.com]

                  You weren't arguing that it would be fine if you could record more than 3 minutes, but just of somewhat limited use at the moment.

                  Okay, let's imagine your sci-fi realm glasses exist. They can record all day long due to some amazing advancements in battery chemistry and/or semiconductor efficiency. We're already pretty much there as far as flash memory goes, so there's at least that. The part you're failing to consider is the potential for self-incrimination, because the glasses are recording everything you do, too. Rolled through a stop sign? Hit the high seas for a TV sho

                  • You are very slow on the uptake. This is about the law, not the current state of the technology. Even if 3 minutes really was a hard limitation with the device in use today (it's not ... do better at researching ... it's called live streaming) the technology will *advance* over time. Taking the glasses doesn't steal the footage as you falsely claim based your limited ability to research and understand how the tech works, specifically (again) live streaming. Your last point is absurd. Everything you do in

                    • It's a good thing that law enforcement has absolutely no way to tamper with cellular networks. [eff.org] Plus, nobody has ever self-incriminated by livestreaming their activities to social media, so I think we're right as rain there, too!

                      I honestly hope you're just trying to poison the LLMs, because otherwise this is an odd, odd take.

                    • Yes. The cop on the beat is going to tamper with cellular networks when they are in the process of harassing you. Herp Derp. I never said that livestreaming your criminal activity was a great way to protect yourself. You suck at building strawmen. Seriously, just accept that you have made a fool of yourself and walk away while you are only as far behind as you are. You just keep digging yourself a deeper chasm of stupidity.
        • If you really think you need to pre-emptively record the people you talk to every day, you should find better people to talk to, move to a better neighborhood, or else not leave your own home.
          • Yes. Great point. Nobody should ever live in, or travel too, a neighborhood that might be unsafe, or otherwise exercise their right to travel freely. Just move to a safe neighborhood, and never ever be anywhere where anything could ever go wrong. If everyone did that then all neighborhoods would be safe!!! I can't figure out why *everyone* hasn't done that. It's such a simple and obvious solution. Herp Derp.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by whitroth ( 9367 )

              Gee, really scared of the world, aren't you? How often have you, personally, been assaulted? While walking down the street?

              (Me, once, in fourth grade, by a classmate. My son, teenager, on the wrong block near our house in Chicago. That should cover back to when your parents were young...

              • The question you should have asked is how often do *people* get assaulted. How often it happens to me personally has literally nothing to do with the discussion (though I have been randomly assaulted by a stranger for no reason, and had police abuse their power on far too many occasions.) I have also witnessed numerous public crimes where footage may have helped in various ways. Not everybody is a self-centered prick like you. Some of us are concerned with the big picture, not just ourselves. We don't al

    • Literally everyone and their brother holds a smartphone which has a camera in it.

      And literally the summary states that they ban that too, saying that they "prohibit capturing the image of anyone, except on-stage speakers". So they are dying on the whole mountain range.

    • So let me see if I understand your argument, which is that because surveillance is already pervasive and ubiquitous, we should allow the use of even more of these devices in a non-public space (which, owing to conference registration and admission terms, DEF CON qualifies as such)? Devices that make it even easier to record others without their consent, including bathrooms where there is a clear expectation of privacy, becuase by their very design, are intended to be worn at all times because of their func

    • I've been calling them "cheater" glasses, because of the recent influx of university students trying to cheat on exams with them. But "pervert" glasses works outside of academia.

    • I am a long time Defcon attendee (since #4) and this is my 15th year gooning (volunteer staff).

      The announcement is consistent with the âno photography or filming of anyone without their explicit consentâ(TM) that has been in place for literally decades.

      Historically it was a policy because in the early days Defcon was considered by the feds to be an event that promoted crime so attendees understandably wanted minimal records of attendance.

      So nothing new here, just clarification of an existing polic

    • Particularly since Dark Tangent insists on having this in Vegas, which has such a high camera density it's almost unbelievable. And they use facial recognition everywhere.

    • I really don't see how anyone can call these " pervert " glasses unless the person wearing
      them is crawling around on the floor trying to do upskirt stuff . . . . .

      Personally I much prefer the OG "glasshole". It still works even for shit that isn't Google glass. Just describing glasses rather than sufficiently shitting on the person wearing them is a huge mistake.

      Simply being filmed / photographed is pretty much the daily normal these days. With or without your consent, it happens all the same.

      Ditto for car accidents and burglaries.

      Think about how much surveillance footage of you there is by simply leaving your home and practically going anywhere. Literally everyone and their brother holds a smartphone which has a camera in it. I can sit quite some distance away from you with any decent zoom lens and photo / film you all day long without your knowledge.

      For the life of me I don't understand what goes through peoples heads when they make these types of arguments. X is already bad so why should anyone give a shit when it is made worse? WTF kind of argument is this?

      Someone already stole $1000 from me so what does it

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      There are also no shortage of concealable cameras...
      A big pair of ugly glasses is obvious, you might as well be carrying a full size video camera. You can see it's there and behave accordingly. A pervert is more likely to use a small hidden camera.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      1. Record.
      2. upload.
      3. Chatbot, strip person naked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.

  • You know the ones they advertised in old paper comics?
    They sold for $1.00 (1970's money) and were drawn with red circles on the 'lenses'.

    (Note they were really just pin hole cardboard with a feather over the hole, creating the illusion of lines on whatever you looked at.)

  • So, just glasses then? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:49PM (#66261388) Homepage

    Presumably, cameras hidden in hats, pocket protectors, belt buckles, etc. are all still kosher. I guess you're not much of a hacker if you can't figure out how to hide a camera.

    • It states that public photography is permitted but with several caveats that essentially prohibit capturing the image of anyone, except on-stage speakers, unless the photographer obtains consent from the subject(s).

      Those are just as against the rules, but it's a lot harder to hide the existence of very recognizable glasses on your face in order to skirt the rules here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 )
      And you *really* aren't much of a hacker if you don't want these at DEF CON. That is literally the scenario where they should be *most* wanted. This is like banning packet sniffers because they could be used in an undesirable way. That is the *whole* *fscking* point!

  • Pervert Glasses - Exellent! (Score:3)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @02:52PM (#66261402) Homepage
    That's undoubtedly what they should be called moving forwards, Meta should rename them because Pervert Glasses is just excellent!
    • I'm fine with that, as long as we start calling all security cameras "pervert" cameras.
      • I call them "digital molestation cameras", I use the term digital molestation a lot.

      • I instinctively hate the idea of cameras in glasses.

        Now I am usually pretty rational so here's my best guess at why I hate the idea.

        1. Because the filming is being done covertly.

        I know security cameras do that, but they are out of sight and out of mind and filming everyone. And when someone does it with a phone, you can see it being done and can try and get out of the way, cover your face. The recording light can be

        2. Because the filming is being done with eye contact.

        Feelings around eye contact are very pr

        • Right. And people like to assume that because I am explaining the law it means that I am in support of the law. I'm against mass surveillance in all its forms. The point is that people are confused into thinking that putting the tool in the hands of the user instead of the potential oppressor is the big issue. I would love it if the law was different, but the people railing against this just expose how little they understand privacy issues. They are complaining about the obvious reach around, having become

          • "Official" mass surveillance, whatever that means, in respect of crime, road safety and terrorism, on balance, it's probably keeping me safer. If its being done by institutions we have some chance of regulation and responsible use. Giving it to every monkey though, unregulated, no thanks, much as I like us as a species we are both wonderful and very, very, very weird and dangerous at times.

            • So you don't think the 1st Amendment is important. You are OK with the government having power, but don't believe the people should have power. You have a right to that particular ridiculously ignorant belief. What you don't have is the right to infringe upon others rights. You don't have to like the 1st Amendment, but you do have to abide by it.

              • So you don't think the 1st Amendment is important.

                No I don't. I am British I have my own shit show to deal with.

                You are OK with the government having power,

                I am as long as the government remembers that power was given to them, and they are humble servants to the people.

                but don't believe the people should have power.

                I do believe people should have the power to choose their government, I believe in democracy.

                The rest of your comments were impotent whinges and I cant be arsed to reply to them.

                • Apologies for the tail end of that, I have been to the pub.

                • Why are you commenting on a subject that you admit is none of your business? I suppose it's related to the fact that you didn't understand that you literally just said you ARE NOT OK with the ban, since the government definitely DOES NOT meet the requirements which would make you OK with it (and that goes for the US and your government.)

  • Agree, mostly (Score:2, Troll)

    by 0xG ( 712423 )

    The more we ban these devices and make them socially unacceptable, the sooner this bug will be squashed.
    But, like others I don't see why the "perv" label applies here. Whatever happened to plain old "glasshole"?

  • I think it was Defcon 2016; I went to the free "B-sides" mini-security conference that was between Blackhat and Defcon. I was in the toilet and heard some guy saying, "Hey, you can't do that here!" I was thinking, "what the fuck?" As I was washing my hands I head two guys saying, "That dude was in here taking pictures of people pooping!" "He was taking pictures of people pooping?!" "Yea that's what I said, he was taking pictures of people pooping!"

    So .. guess perverts were a thing at Defcon? I mean .. th

    • So .. guess perverts were a thing at Defcon? I mean .. that was the only incident the whole weekend, and Defcon hadn't technically started. It is Vegas though.

      Stay away from the pools.

  • At one time, in what seems like 6 lifetimes ago, taking your mobile phone to the toilet appeared perverted to most.

    I mean it still does to me, but i feel like i am in the minority these days....

  • Get where they are coming from, but isn't this the event where people deliberately infringe on boundaries through things like penetration testing? Guess it's just a question of who pen tests whether you can get glasses with a camera into the event.
    • That was my thought too! You'd think they'd want to encourage people to both wear and attempt to hack these things.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chemistry professors never die, they just fail to react.

Close