Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Privacy Facebook

Privacy Backlash Explodes Against Meta's Smart Glasses (yahoo.com) 72

Posted by EditorDavid from the I'll-be-seeing-you dept.
With nearly 70% of the market, "Meta wants its smart glasses to be a big hit," writes the Los Angeles Times. But after some users found ways to disable the light that warns people they're being filmed, "the high-tech specs have also turned into a liability, as some are calling the gadget 'pervert glasses...'" Some people are using the glasses — which look like a pair of regular spectacles — to record people without their knowledge and publish the videos on social media. The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could be covertly recorded at the gym or even during sex. The backlash has prompted Meta to update its glasses to address privacy concerns, and some places have banned them, adding to the angst surrounding technology that's rapidly evolving...

Concern about the glasses has exploded as more videos of interactions with people who don't know they're being recorded go viral on social media. On Instagram, some videos depict people getting approached in malls and grocery stores and on college campuses and sidewalks. While the videos are portrayed as jokes, the people filmed don't appear to know they're being recorded and sometimes seem uncomfortable, telling the strangers to leave them alone or stop harassing them. The outcry has spread beyond social media, with comedian Jimmy Kimmel calling the Meta devices "pervert glasses" on national television and singer Lorde telling concertgoers that smart glasses are "not sexy..."

Instagram, which is owned by Meta, has been disabling accounts and taking down some of these pickup or prank videos for violating the platform's rules against harassment and bullying... Businesses are making their own calls about smart glasses. The 5 Point Cafe in Seattle, which banned Google Glass in the past, has banned Meta glasses from its diner and dive bar. "Leave your Meta-SpyBan Display at home, they are officially Ray-Ban-ned from all of our restaurants. We serve privacy, not side-eye surveillance," a 2025 Instagram post from the business states.
An Android app that warns people if they're being recorded has roughly 110,000 downloads in the last six months, according to the article. The app's creator says it's a "social problem" that "we don't value privacy, that we feel entitled to use others for our entertainment or our private gain, and technology amplifies that."

The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 70 organizations even sent a letter urging Meta to promise they'd leave facial recognition features out of their smart glasses, according to the article. But a Meta spokesperson said "no final decision has been made."

Privacy Backlash Explodes Against Meta's Smart Glasses More | Reply

Privacy Backlash Explodes Against Meta's Smart Glasses

Comments Filter:
  • Who wears glasses while they are having sex?

    • Re:During Sex? (Score:4, Funny)

      by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Sunday August 09, 2026 @10:12PM (#66281216) Homepage

      Mark Zuckerberg

    • Many POV video producers! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Sunday August 09, 2026 @10:36PM (#66281236)

      Who wears glasses while they are having sex?

      It's a great way to film yourself having sex if you have the consent of your partner. Sunglasses are weird, but not as weird and a gopro on your forehead. I can see these as a staple of amateur porn. No one wants to see the guy, so the sunglasses make him even more of a prop from other camera views, but many want to see things from his point of view!

      • You sound like a pro gooner

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by SumDog ( 466607 )
          This entire thread needs to be burned. TMI people! No one wants to hear about your gooncaves!

          • This entire thread needs to be burned. TMI people! No one wants to hear about your gooncaves!

            Dude...if knowing people enjoy porn spikes your blood pressure this much, you're not long for this world. Relax. No one is sending you dick pics...which TBH wouldn't even traumatize me...I'd just be bored. It's not natural to hate sex as much as you seem to.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

        Meta glasses can only record for 3 minutes at a time unless you're live streaming, and I'm fairly certain Meta's TOS prohibits that kind of content, so live streaming isn't going to be an option.

        At any rate, adult video productions do their own version of "Hollywood movie magic" and if that means the person getting fucked has to ignore the helmet mounted GoPro, that's just part of what they signed up for. Meta glasses basically bring nothing of value to the table, at least for producers of legitimate adult

        • Yes but amateur porn is still the best :-p

        • Meh. 3 minutes is enough for most men from what the women tell me after a lesson from the Swiss Tony [youtube.com] school of love.

          "Wham bam thank you mam"

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by zlives ( 2009072 )

            "from what the women tell"
            virgin detected, 3 minutes is enough to have sex and a sandwich.

        • Meta glasses can only record for 3 minutes at a time unless you're live streaming, and I'm fairly certain Meta's TOS prohibits that kind of content, so live streaming isn't going to be an option.

          At any rate, adult video productions do their own version of "Hollywood movie magic" and if that means the person getting fucked has to ignore the helmet mounted GoPro, that's just part of what they signed up for. Meta glasses basically bring nothing of value to the table, at least for producers of legitimate adult content.

          That's interesting. I didn't realize they were so firmly limited. I would have guessed other software would work allow it. I don't own these and never plan on buying any. I'm monogamous and sadly it's tough getting a wife/mom in her 40s to let you photograph, let alone video her....so video shenanigans are not in the cards for me. However, meta isn't the only game in town and really pro porn is an endangered species. It's just too hard to make money off it, especially for an extended period of time.

          • I think most would agree, porn would be a lot better for society if more "real people" were in it. Instead of a LA fitness instructor with huge breast implants, like we saw in the 80s and 90s and 00s...what if it was actual women and men who are actually in love with their partners and have imperfect bodies? What if lonely people watched healthy, positive, loving sex instead of impersonal performances?

            Err...because that gets old and boring REALLY REALLY fast.

            No one is watching pr0n to learn relationship l

          • What if lonely people watched healthy, positive, loving sex instead of impersonal performances?

            Don't overlook the fantasy aspect of just wanting a partner to fuck.

            Yes, there is a semantical difference between "making love" and "fucking their brains out."

            • What if lonely people watched healthy, positive, loving sex instead of impersonal performances?

              Don't overlook the fantasy aspect of just wanting a partner to fuck.

              Yes, there is a semantical difference between "making love" and "fucking their brains out."

              Of course...and many like Pilsner beer, like a Bud or Coors....I personally like those beers myself. However, I also really appreciate a Guinness and many other types of beer that taste nothing like bud light. If you like impersonal fucking....well, the world is your oyster...those are the default and dominant form. 99% of professionally produced and even the vast majority of amateur porn falls under that category. You're all set.

              My wife prefers stuff where the couple is less tacky and the sex is more

        • This only means you are a man-in-the-middle hack away from using these as point-of-view porn cameras - figure out how to send the livestream to a recorder not controlled by Meta (not sure if they allow you to turn off certificate verification) and you're done.

      • > No one wants to see the guy

        You might be surprised how many women actually enjoy porn.

        • > No one wants to see the guy You might be surprised how many women actually enjoy porn.

          Very good point, but it's been long lamented by male porn stars that their craft isn't very appreciated...that they're a prop. I enjoy porn documentaries and reading about these things. :) Most women I talk to who are into porn like I am, the man is often a placeholder. They may want to see his body, but they're happier the less they see his face. Even if they're enjoying his physique, they want to picture a specific man or a man who's more their type (most male porn stars from the studio days are prett

        • You might be surprised how many women actually enjoy porn.

          Err...as the old saying goes..."real" men don't care what women want...

          ;)

          But seriously.....sure there are women that like it, but not nearly enough in numbers to drive content made and published at least not the general masses.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dskoll ( 99328 )

            Look at the sales of romance novels. A lot of those are quite explicitly erotic. I think women might be more interested in reading erotic stories and men might be more interested in visuals. But there's probably a fair amount of overlap.

            • I'll never understand romance novels; it seems like one of the most redundant and worthless categories of fantasy literature. From what I've seen, they generally don't include many visuals, which likely allows for visualizations of specific known individuals or fantasy rather than focus on the cover image or whatever. So in a sense, women's greater (almost exlusive?) indulgence in romance novel aligns with the general perspective on this thread that nobody wants to actually see specific male faces in sexual

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        It probably isn't a great way at all since you only have an approximate sense of what you're filming and have to crank your head in the direction you want to record which may not be practical with glasses perched on your face. Anyone interested in doing this would be better off just using a Gopro or a phone and holding it or putting it on a stand.

    • "Who wears glasses while they are having sex?"

      Maybe her beauty was blinding.... :-)

    • Some people need the amplify image filter.

    • People filming porn with their Meta glasses.

      Try to keep up.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sperm ( 916223 )

      Dont have Meta glasses, but you must have a pretty boring sex life if sex is only an indoor thing to you. Its plenty fun in the outdoors and beaches, and yes sunglasses are good then too!

  • glasshole 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Sunday August 09, 2026 @10:19PM (#66281222)
    We saw this with google glassholes, why would Meta expect anything else. wearing these in public is just inviting confrontations and by the sounds of things deservedly so.

    • This really does feel like deja vu. The only thing that's changed is this time around the glasses look less dorky to the casual observer. Though, once you get right up in someone's face and see the camera lens on their glasses, that old familiar glasshole alarm starts ringing again.

      • Another thing that may have changed is decreased value and expectation of privacy. Maybe a relevant pane in the Overton window is opening. Or maybe so Meta hopes.

      • The _reporting_ makes it feel like deja vu. The reality is that Meta has sold _millions_ of these.

        I'm betting that there are orders of magnitude more benign videos made with these than there are instances of people being harassed/secretly recorded with them. Remember how popular it is to make videos of everything and put them on Instagram, TikTok or Facebook. Most people love this shit, whether we like it or not.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Except this time around they're being called "perv goggles" or "perv glasses". I suggest we keep reinforcing that term so that's what the public calls them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Exactly. It's an open invitation by the wearer to have violence done to them. People don't like cameras pointed in their faces without consent. Some countries might legally allow a person to be filmed but they're still going to be provoked. Other countries have an expectation of privacy built into law where consent is absolutely necessary to film them except in an incidental or narrowly defined basis.

  • Surveillance cameras (Score:3, Interesting)

    by innocent_white_lamb ( 151825 ) on Sunday August 09, 2026 @10:22PM (#66281226)

    I remember a huge outcry around surveillance cameras in stores and the like a few decades ago.

    Now everyone seems to accept/ignore the fact that you're being recorded while shopping at Walmart or even just driving down the street.

    So is this another flash-in-the-pan surveillance outrage that will fade away just like it apparently did before?

    My idea of smart glasses that would actually be useful would be something that would be a personal computer display like you see in some science fiction movies. Wouldn't it be handy to be able to view a "monitor" of any apparent size (tiny and in the corner, or filling your field of view, or...) while you're walking down the street or riding a bus?

    • Re:Surveillance cameras (Score:5, Funny)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Sunday August 09, 2026 @11:44PM (#66281282) Homepage

      The ultimate irony would be someone using Meta glasses to live stream their vandalism of Flock cameras.

    • Re: Surveillance cameras (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gavino ( 560149 ) on Sunday August 09, 2026 @11:46PM (#66281284)
      Not at all the same. In store cameras are closed CCTV systems. They are filmed with security and law enforcement in mind - not social media clicks. Plus they are passive and fixed, discrete devices in the ceilings of buildings - they don't follow you around on foot, and interact with you via the wearer. This will not go away.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )

        Well, that's very nice and technically correct - the best kind of correct. The problem is, it isn't operationally correct. In-building surveillance data is pooled and shared - ALWAYS at the corporate level (think: facial recognition banlists for bad customers, casino bans, alcohol bans etc) and frequently shared with other parties as well (for example, Ring cameras shared with law enforcement as a "virtual neighborhood watch" program. I am sorry to say that I am the inventor on a US patent for that (US 10,2

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      It would be nice when people would become aware of the ubiquitous surveillance again. People got tired and accepted the status quo, without the problem being solved.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )

        People got tired and accepted the status quo, without the problem being solved.

        This has always been the case for everything. People can only maintain priority 1 outrage about something for a limited time until the next priority 1 outrage arises. That's why corporations are willing to pour such huge resources into buying the message/politicians - they know it's never a long-haul thing. That advertisement for Canva where the squirrel says "I'm the thing!" - only to be usurped by a pigeon playing the harmonica - is EXACTLY how public attention works.

  • Why all the protests? Is this genuine grassroots stuff or astroturf? The Corps and governments are already having cams and tracking on y'all.

    So why the great objection to the People having cams? Is that really worse than the People having guns?

    Just look at how the ICE thugs responded to people videoing them. Seems to me we need more "normal" people with cameras than fewer.

    That way when the gov or black vans come for you, we at least have your last streamed video and might be able to identify some of the thu

    • Well, Cory Doctorow wrote Little Brother [craphound.com] about that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shilly ( 142940 )

      As you yourself pointed out, the people already have cameras in their phones and use them for counter-surveillance with ICE etc. The objection is to hidden cameras that are used against other people, not overt cameras that are used against state agents.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by nospam007 ( 722110 ) *

        Both are legal.
        There is no expectation of privacy in public.
        Every Tesla films you with a dozen cameras, anybody can have their phone in the breast-pocket filming you.
        The law allows it.
        People should get over it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by larwe ( 858929 )

          There is no expectation of privacy in public. Every Tesla films you with a dozen cameras, anybody can have their phone in the breast-pocket filming you.

          Even in the US it isn't that simple. In all parts of the US, a private owner of a space has the absolute right to ban filming. Your Tesla example is not the absolute you claim it to be - the moment you drive off a public road and (say) behind my hedge or fence, you're subject to my rules..

    • Seems to me we need more "normal" people with cameras than fewer.

      That way when the gov or black vans come for you, we at least have your last streamed video and might be able to identify some of the thugs that got you.

      Maybe we could crowdsource more surveillance of various politicians and CxOs. Why can they track us and we not track them?

      That seems to be the position of David Brin in The Transparent Society [wikipedia.org] (1998): "Brin argues that it will be good for society if the powers of surveillance are shared with the citizenry, allowing 'sousveillance [wikipedia.org]' or 'viewing from below,' enabling the public to watch the watchers."

      "In [Brin's science-fiction book] Earth [wikipedia.org] (1990) ... surveillance by elderly retirees wearing recognizable networked camera-glasses is common."

      Brin's vision would seem to require decoupling surveillance (or "sousveillance") from

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )

        Brin's vision would seem to require decoupling surveillance (or "sousveillance") from the control of both government and corporations like Meta.

        Noble, and will never happen; power is maintained through information asymmetry. The panopticon is m-1 and will never be m-m.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by larwe ( 858929 )

      Just look at how the ICE thugs responded to people videoing them. Seems to me we need more "normal" people with cameras than fewer.

      There is a big difference between citizens in public places filming the activities of law enforcement vs. citizens bringing cameras into activities in non-public spaces. Out on the street? Film away. In my house, a restaurant, a business? Cameras down.

    • The United States is a republic: not an monarchy, not a democracy, not an oligarchy. Federal government has only those powers explicitly granted to it by our Constitution. Universal surveillance W/O warrant is NOT one of those powers. So any government agency -- including subsidiary governments like state/county/city -- installing such cameras violates the Constitution. The officials & the cameras violate the law. Any citizen destroying / disabling those cameras acts legally as a

  • It was never technology for good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Monday August 10, 2026 @02:03AM (#66281338)

    ... facial recognition ...

    The data is worthless if Meta can't assign a name to the stream. Turning their paying customers into perverts was always the plan.

    When spy-glasses were a theory, they were seen as a good thing: A way to have a computer explain everything (and everyone) for you. It would be a silicon brain just for the eyeballs: In reality, their best function was helping narcissists abuse other people.

    • Re:It was never technology for good (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Woeful Countenance ( 1160487 ) on Monday August 10, 2026 @04:08AM (#66281446)

      When spy-glasses were a theory, they were seen as a good thing: A way to have a computer explain everything (and everyone) for you.

      Steve Mann [wikipedia.org] has been doing that since the 1970s (or 1981, depending on source [wikipedia.org]), using his own custom-made hardware and software, including a thigh-mounted chord keyboard [wikipedia.org]. If you talk to him, he can call up a record of your previous interactions and other details, sort of a computerized version of the "Farley file" mentioned in Robert Heinlein's 1956 novel Double Star [wikipedia.org].

      "Mann went on to be an early and active researcher in the wearables field, especially known for his 1994 creation of the Wearable Wireless Webcam, the first example of lifelogging."

      When spy-glasses were a theory, they were seen as a good thing

      Sort of like the Internet itself.

      • I think the main problem with the internet, is the USA defunded education, and its media de-prioritized historical facts (AKA, lied to its audience). The result was more than political divisiveness and the rise of 'anti-woke' ideology. It's was millions of rich idiots, using the helpful power of internet to find other idiots and "flood the zone", thereby hiding the few facts still available.

  • A swift punch in face (Score:4, Funny)

    by butt0nm4n ( 1736412 ) on Monday August 10, 2026 @03:57AM (#66281432)

    Weirdo glasses broken.

    Consider a knee in the bollocks to protect the gene pool and their future targets. At your discretion ladies.

    • Weirdo glasses broken.

      Consider a knee in the bollocks to protect the gene pool and their future targets. At your discretion ladies.

      With conveniently-streamed video evidence identifying the vandal / assailant!

    • We live in a society where an AI shows a government employee nude pictures of me when I go to the airport. When I go to the store, the shop owner secretly tracks where I am using BLE even when you don't install their app. The problem is waaaay bigger than these glasses.

  • Just make putting videos on social media without the consent of the people in it illegal with a hefty fine/jailtime. It's already ridiculous how many people just film others and put it on the internet without consent. Oh and make it extra illegal if people make money on it (so going viral makes the fine/jailtime go up).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leptons ( 891340 )
      Not so easily fixed... there's this thing called "the first amendment" which covers recording in public. No, you don't have to get consent to record and post the recording. There may be some gray area there around making money from the content, which can happen on monetized platforms like Youtube, but that only happens if a channel has enough viewers.

  • Let me correct that verbiages: people who bought the glasses want to use them, and the massively overwhelming majority who don't have them call them pervert glasses.

  • When you think about it, you're allowed to walk in anywhere. Look at whatever you like. Listen to whatever conversation you want to. This is well and truly already established. Now that someone can remember everything they see and hear, suddenly we're talking about privacy issues. Lol.
    • These fall under the same rules as video recording with a camera. Most people don't want a camera shoved in their face - regardless of size or legality of the pervert.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      When you think about it, you're allowed to walk in anywhere. Look at whatever you like. Listen to whatever conversation you want to. This is well and truly already established. Now that someone can remember everything they see and hear, suddenly we're talking about privacy issues. Lol.

      When I think about it, I can see a clear difference.

      There were all manner of places where human eyes were accepted, but still/video cameras were not, long predating "smart glasses". From changing rooms, saunas, locker rooms, and bath houses to performances like plays and concerts, and movie theatres to executive board room meetings, and even court rooms in many cases.

      There are lots of scenarios where everybody accepts and consents that other people will see/hear them, but do not accept or consent to be reco

  • I have no fscking use for spyglasses or AI nonsense.

    But if I could purchase a pair of glasses that function as a monitor of arbitrary size...and has the same or better resolution than my current monitor? In a heartbeat. No AI, no camera, no spyglass BS. Just shine a laser (or 3) in my eye and paint a monitor on my retina.
    But nobody seems to be interested in making those.

    Why?
    Because the user functionality is bait.
    The purpose of the glasses is surveillance for the benefit of the people selling them to you.

  • I don't if the number is actually 99.999%, but 9X% of people don't care about privacy, even accidentally. Privacy involves dedication, it involves work, it requires staying away from the numerous digital Epstein on the market, which just happens to be most companies. Something simple like using OneDrive, or, having Co-Pilot active, is enough to disqualify a person.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Close