Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Facebook

'Zuckoff' App Detects Meta Smartglasses, as Meta Plans Camera-Free Version, Loses Money, and Offers Social Media Subscriptions (nypost.com) 179

Posted by EditorDavid from the Meta-commentary dept.
The New York Post reports: A new app called Zuckoff can detect if a user is near someone with Meta's creepy AI-powered glasses, which have drawn criticism for enabling creeps to record video of women without their consent. Programmer Pawel Szydlowski says tales of dirtbags recording themselves perving on women or harassing strangers prompted him to launch the app...

Zuckoff — which detects Bluetooth signatures broadcast by smart glasses and can estimate their distance — has gained some 5,000 users since it hit Apple's App Store last month, according to Business Insider. "There's a need for such an application," the 30-year-old Polish techie told the outlet, adding that European Union regulators have contacted him for more info about his app. "We as a society have the right to at least know that someone is recording," Szydlowski said...

Earlier this month, the tech giant disabled thousands of glasses it found had been tampered with to keep a small light off that indicates the device is recording.
It's already #61 on the iPhone's list of best-selling utilities apps.

In a related story, "After accusations of selling 'perv glasses,' Meta prepares to sell a pair without a camera," writes TechCrunch, citing a report from The Information. The glasses include six built-in microphones so users can communicate with the chatbot, as well as a button on the side of the glasses that, when pressed, activates the AI system... Meta's Reality Labs, which is responsible for developing its smart glasses line, is still losing a gargantuan amount of money, as its earnings report from April revealed.
In fact, Meta stock is off 13% over the last 12 months, reports Yahoo Finance. So Tuesday Meta announced subscription services for its social apps as "part of Meta's push to drive additional revenue from the billions it's investing in AI data centers and model development." The plans, which start at $2.99 per month for single-product plans, $7.99 for individual bundles, and $14.99 for creator and business bundles, provide a number of features for users looking to get more out of their Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp accounts. Instagram Plus and Facebook Plus allow users to keep their stories up for 48 hours instead of 24, send animated super reactions and super hearts to stories, preview stories without showing up as a viewer in other users' lists, and more. WhatsApp Plus lets you share exclusive stickers, get exclusive ringtones for contacts, and pin up to 20 different chats.

Meta One also includes Core and Premium user plans that offer the features found in the single-product plans, along with increased AI usage limits for images and videos. The social media giant is also offering creator and business plans... that it says include capabilities such as enhanced profiles, automatic follow invitations to users that interact with your content, and increased access to the Meta Business Agent, which can respond on your behalf.
When Instagram head Adam Mosseri announced on Threads that the plans brought "more features and more AI across Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Meta AI," writer Joe Hill drew 13,300 likes for his response. "That's sweet--so pay a fee, get more AI, pay nothing, get a little less AI. Can we work out a deal where you pay ME and I get no AI at all?"

'Zuckoff' App Detects Meta Smartglasses, as Meta Plans Camera-Free Version, Loses Money, and Offers Social Media Subscriptions More | Reply

'Zuckoff' App Detects Meta Smartglasses, as Meta Plans Camera-Free Version, Loses Money, and Offers Social Media Subscriptions

Comments Filter:

  • The brilliance of our tech overlords (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17, 2026 @07:52AM (#66340788)

    "We're losing a bunch of money based on your bad decisions"

    "Charge more subscription fees"

    "Billion dollar idea sir! We should definitely look past every other shady thing and bad decision you've made"

  • Is this really what people will pay for? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ack154 ( 591432 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @08:31AM (#66340824)

    "keep their stories up for 48 hours instead of 24, send animated super reactions and super hearts to stories, preview stories without showing up as a viewer in other users' list"

    Surely, they have some kind of data that says someone will pay for this, right? Is this really what people can't wait to hand over money to Facebook for? Super Reactions? "Exclusive" stickers and ringtones? I'd love to hear from someone that actually pays for that kind of stuff and what they are really getting out of it - because I REALLY don't get it.

    • Probably the same people who buy the glasses.

    • Re:Is this really what people will pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wildstoo ( 835450 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @08:53AM (#66340856)

      People are weird. Discord has done this for years with their Nitro subscription. I imagine it makes the people who buy it feel special because they have access to features the free users cannot. Twitch has some similar features too, although I think there you're subscribing to the actual channels and Twitch themselves take a cut.

      I mean, people pay for costmetic items in games just to look different from other players, so, yes, people will absolutely pay for this stuff. I imagine a lot of those people will be kids though, tbh.

      • People are weird. Discord has done this for years with their Nitro subscription. I imagine it makes the people who buy it feel special because they have access to features the free users cannot.

        Uh, I'm pretty sure that's standard psy-op marketing 101 for ALL "premium" experience upgrades regardless of product or service.

        People aren't as weird as selling addictive FOMO as some kind of good thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        That "Nitro" stuff makes zero sense rationally. My guess is pure appeal to vanity.

        • That "Nitro" stuff makes zero sense rationally. My guess is pure appeal to vanity.

          If you're vain enough to want to stand out with exclusive emojis or animated whatevers, then spending money on a Nitro subscription makes rational sense.

      • Re:Is this really what people will pay for? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nugatory78 ( 971318 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @11:42AM (#66341138)
        I actually pay for Nitro. There is only one feature that I want, and its to be able to stream at a decent quality. I have friends scattered all over the world who also use discord. Almost everyday I'm streaming something on discord, so its worth it to me just for the streaming quality improvement. I'd love a cheaper option without all the rest of nitro, that stuff doesn't make any sense to me.

      • people pay for costmetic items in games just to look different from other players, so, yes, people will absolutely pay for this stuff. I imagine a lot of those people will be kids though, tbh.

        I like that you wrote "costmetic". All of these people are kids. Some are adult-aged, but they are all mental infants. And if anyone believes there isn't a market for this, may I remind you of the Crazy Frog? From Wikipedia: "Jamba/Jamster boomed—when VeriSign bought the business it had a turnover of $15 million per quarter and 3 quarters later this increased to $150 million a quarter—in 2005, the company made close to $600 million in revenue." A fool and his money are soon parted.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Xenx ( 2211586 )

          Some are adult-aged, but they are all mental infants.

          I'm not endorsing paid digital cosmetics, there is a lot going on here to hate, but I do want to point out that paid cosmetics(generalization) are a part of reality too. The clothes we wear, makeup, cars, and so on. Much of that is also transient in nature.

          The makeup people wear in real life is fundamentally no different that the paid cosmetics in a game or on social media. You're augmenting your visual appearance to change how other view you. Arguably, the digital cosmetics are a better value as they can

      • There are two reasons to go with Nitro on Discord that may or may not be worth the money to you:

        1) Your video / image uploads in the free tier have a 20MB limit, whereas Nitro can upload 500MB ( regardless of server you're in )
        2) Streaming at 4k / 60fps ( assuming your internet connection can handle it ) is available with the Nitro Tier.

        The rest is pretty much fluff. Stickers, emojis, avatar frames, etc.

        I'm not all that concerned about $120 / year.
        Hell, I spend anywhere from ~$30 - $50 per DAY just eatin

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      I am not part of that dark corner of the Internet, so I don't really know why anyone would pay (or use for free) any of this shit. However, in gaming, there is a concept of "whale". A tiny minority of player would pay serious money for any advantage. This is typically seen as P2W (pay to win) but it can fund a small dev team. Back in the day I played a niche MMO, I recall a player that allegedly dropped $100K on the game. To me, this is crazy.

      • Re:Is this really what people will pay for? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @09:42AM (#66340964)

        To be fair, there are quite a few crazy people with money.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It can get a lot crazier than that. This [cbsnews.com] guy embezzled a bunch of money and spent about a million of it on a shitty mobile game.

      • That is crazy! Decades ago, I had a friend who was playing a text based MMO (before they were called that) who told me that items had sold for over $10k. Crazy then, crazy now.

        I guess if you have s*tloads of cash lying around, using it to fund a studio that makes a game you like could make sense. Sort of. But at that point, it seems to me it would make far more sense to invest $100k in the company, and then just ask for the item.

        • I use to sell wow accounts during the cata and mop era. Didn't make that much money but I saw it as cashing out, which covered the game purchase and at least a year of subscription fees. I figure they were willing to spend the few hundred dollars on a level 80 or 85 because they could immediately join the raiding scene instead of having to work all the way up from scratch. Given Blizzard allowed people to do paid server transfers and name changes, this really almost encouraged the activity.

      • There was a player in EVE Online, who bulled his "guild mates" into helping him to get stuff he needed to build a super carrier. I think he got actually the first one of that type in game - not sure about that.

        He sunk several 10k USD into it, in in-game currency to get what he wanted. As he was a general dickhead, when he made one of his first flights, perhaps even the first flight, he got "kicked from guild".

        The whole universe was invited to kill him. I think the server crashed when 10k players where in th

      • That kind of thing is insane but nowhere near peak insane waste of money.

        I used to do database reporting for a tribal casino. The biggest customer had dropped over $10M in there. There were more than ten others in the multi million dollar losers club.

    • There will be plenty of people who think it's super cool for reasons that won't make sense to you. Or me, for that matter, but we aren't the target audience and shouldn't expect to get why the target audience will enjoy it.
    • Want to get us all wearing glasses because we'd be walking around creating a surveillance network. Americans don't like the idea of the government running a surveillance Network so we're building our surveillance Network with Private industry and then the government taps into it with private contracts.

      Americans have this weird thing where they don't care how much they are oppressed or how much the boot is on their neck as long as it's a privately owned boot. The idea of that the billionaire is getting t

    • Sneaky sneaky. That spy mode could be worth it for some people.

  • This is a weird little hit piece (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zephvark ( 1812804 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @08:43AM (#66340840)
    The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common, nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone. The phrase "We, as a society" is never going to end well, either. Don't try to coopt me into your vision of what everybody needs to do.

    • You are right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @09:01AM (#66340876)
      Correct term is Privacy Rapist, pervert glasses is just polite euphemism.

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by postbigbang ( 761081 )

        Perhaps the app could be extended to FlockOff, another privacy rapist, now that the code and EMBEDDED PASSWORD has been hacked.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        The two different terms you used kind of look like they apply to different things. "Privacy rapist" appears to refer to the person using the product, but "pervert glasses" appears to refer to the product itself. (Maybe you wanted to call the computer a privacy rapist, but I'm going to ass/u/me that you wanted the more mainstream usage of calling the perv who uses the computer a privacy rapist. Please complain if I got this wrong. I only bring up this pedantry, because I want to distinguish computers from th

        • A-fucking-men.

          I wish we could moderate the comments of stories where we also comment, because I'd be happy to give you a point for pointing out the idiotic idea of getting angry at a tool compared to getting angry at the person using the tool for the wrong reasons.

        • You can't just pretend the malicious users don't exist. But that's exactly what Meta is doing.

          Maybe we're just not ready to have certain things in our societies because there are too many shitlords.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sinij ( 911942 )
            You also can't just pretend that malicious leaking of data to Meta isn't inherent to using such glasses.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sinij ( 911942 )
          No, your argument is superficial with a significant flaw that intent is baked into public use of both Flock and Meta's glasses. While there might be legitimate uses for smart glasses, such as manufacturing or remote surgery (I am going on limb here, Meta glasses are not used in such way as far as I know), the vast, overwhelming usage is to produce non-consenting public recordings of people and leak them to Meta for further data mining.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Sloppy ( 14984 )

            the vast, overwhelming usage is to produce non-consenting public recordings of people and leak them to Meta for further data mining.

            I wonder where we find stats to resolve our disagreement. (I assert it's a rare case, but I'm pulling that "fact" out of my ass. Alas, I think you're also pulling the "overwhelming usage" claim out of yours, too.)

    • Re:This is a weird little hit piece (Score:5, Interesting)

      by coofercat ( 719737 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @09:30AM (#66340928) Homepage Journal

      Yes, guys are absolutely following women around and recording them without their consent. Yes, they *could* do it with a phone, but it's a lot easier with some glasses. Perv glasses have, seemingly, opened up a whole new 'market' of pervs who now want to record women without their knowledge.

      We've had it in mainstream media (eg. the BBC/ITV) that some perv with these glasses on talked to some woman on a beach. She was lightly dressed, and the conversation was polite and convivial on both sides, but the recording of it got online where the real pervs and weirdos absolutely slated her, her appearance, how she was complicit in some incel bullshit, how they were going to do X, Y and Z to her if they ever met her - you name it. It was pretty awful, and frankly, no one should have to deal with any of it, least of all some ordinary woman *who had no idea* it was happening to her.

      Then there was a case of some perv recording a woman in a shopping centre. Much the same outcome online, and when she asked him to take the video down, he asked for a fee to do so.

      So yes, men are shit bags, and they're absolutely using these glasses to be even more shit than they were before. Unless someone can come up with a half decent use-case for these glasses that *isn't* perving on women, then I seriously doubt the world needs such a product, and so apps like this are something of a counterpoint to the pervs in Silicon Valley who seem to think we should all be buying their products.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by pla ( 258480 )
        You can buy hundreds of styles of tiny and well-concealed "spy" cams, no questions asked, for a pittance online.

        I hate Meta as much as the next geek, but everyone focusing solely on smart glasses is completely ignoring an entire world of intentionally discreet form factors. Hell, I have a smoke detector in my kitchen with a camera pointing straight at the front door. You'd never even know it was a camera without taking it apart, the lens just looks like an indicator LED. Granted, my use is 100% legitimate

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by coofercat ( 719737 )

          All agreed, BUT the glasses seem to have opened up a new 'market' for pervs. Seemingly it's much easier to be a twat with glasses than it is to buy tiny cameras and mount them in smoke alarms or whatever. Maybe the pervs think all that subterfuge is "out of order" whereas just being a perv out in public is okay because it's in public?

          Whatever level of tiny-camera-spying was going on wasn't enough to trip the mainstream media into action. This is, and as I say, unless there's a "killer app" for the glasses,

        • If the concealed cameras you are talking about were sold at Costco then more people would be concerned.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        Then there was a case of some perv recording a woman in a shopping centre.

        And then there was the case of the Satan-worshipping, D&D-playing Judas Priest fan, who was caught backtalking his mom!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        And what's to stop these perverts doing the same thing with hidden cameras, phones, CCTV etc?

        If someone approached you with a large video camera on their shoulder and started asking you questions, you'd automatically assume you were being recorded right?
        If someone approached you with a phone camera raised up so that the lens is pointing at you, you'd also automatically assume you were being recorded?

        If you didn't want to be recorded in these situations, you'd refuse to talk to this person until they turned

    • Yeah, there isn't a lot of journalistic objectivity in play here. Better that they don't use adjectives that display a personal bias.

    • The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them?

      No, but TikTok delusion does.

      I'll channel my inner Walter Cronkite when I say this; That is all that matters now. You were there? No. You don't even have to be there now.

    • Re:This is a weird little hit piece (Score:5, Informative)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @09:53AM (#66340998) Homepage

      The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common,

      It doesn't have to be common. If 99% of men don't follow women around to perv on them, the 1% who do still make it a big problem. Stuff like this:
      https://futurism.com/artificia... [futurism.com]
      https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09... [cnn.com]
      https://sfist.com/2025/10/03/h... [sfist.com]
      https://www.the-independent.co... [the-independent.com]

      nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone.

      No, you can't be surreptitious with a cell phone.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        No, you can't be surreptitious with a cell phone.

        You can't be surreptitious with a well known, branded camera containing device attached to your face.

        With a cellphone? Sure you can. You hold it in your hand to read something on the screen - which way are the (front and back) lenses facing? How is anyone to know wether you're recording video vs innocently reading something?
        You hold it to your ear to have a call, the rear lens is facing away from you - pointing at what?
        You put it in your shirt pocket, modern phones are big enough that the lens will protrude

    • It's quite common globally since long before "pervert glasses".

      Image boards like 4chan often have threads with poster-supplied content. If you want to understand humanity, look to its vilest preferences.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dayL8 ( 184680 )

      I wonder if the outrage is some sort of viral marketing campaign, since I hadn't heard these were on the market, much less seen a pair, or even an advertisement for them before I saw the backlash. And I have trouble understanding the material difference from all the other sorts of camera that are absolutely everywhere. Maybe it's a bit easier to film someone while you interact with them, without them knowing? Then? OTOH, I can think of some nice mixed reality applications for glasses with a camera, like

    • The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common, nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone. The phrase "We, as a society" is never going to end well, either. Don't try to coopt me into your vision of what everybody needs to do.

      We have to reinforce the idea that all men are always creeps at all times, and all women are innocent victims of the creeps at all times, always, forever and ever, or the terrorists have already won. I dunno, man. The messaging from almost every direction the last decade or so seems customed designed to make sure we all view each other in the worst possible light. This post is very much a part of that trend.

      I think it's far more likely people buying these glasses are doing it to film their mundane lives and

    • With a cell phone everyone would see what you are doing ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Exactly, a pervert is NOT going to use these glasses.

      They are a well known product, and they are openly visible when you're wearing them on your face. Anyone who can see you knows immediately that you are wearing smart glasses with an integrated camera.

      Anything the glasses could record would also be seen by the wearer's eyes. With cellphones perverts have been known to hold the cellphones at low angles in order to intentionally see up someone's skirt for example - this wouldn't happen with glasses.

      The weare

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them?

      I do buy into it, but I don't buy into any allegations that it's typical or a significant fraction of users.

      I know people who own guns but never shot anyone. I know people who have internet access but never pirated any movies. I know people who have very fast cars but don't get speeding tickets. You'd really be surprised at what so many people don't do, even though they could.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them?

      You don't need to "buy into the idea". There's whole youtube channels dedicated to people harassing women and running around with hidden cameras in the process to show their followers "How to pick up girls" and shit like that.

      I guess, but this can't be common

      It's common enough that there are multiple laws covering this in pretty much all western jurisdictions each targeting specific acts and ways and locations where it is done. Many jurisdictions have laws governing repeat offenders too. Additionally a very large number of actual sexual as

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tarlus ( 1000874 )

      It's disturbing but smart glasses aren't the only way one could make clandestine recordings in public. A dude holding his phone up while pretending to read an email could be recording video. Hidden body cams have been a thing for a long time. It would be trivial to hide something in a baseball hat. Remember those James Bond pens with a hidden camera?

      To your point, definitely hit piece vibes. I can think of many other, better reasons for Zuck to fuck off.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      When you don't like something, and you want others to not like it, the most effective method these days is to inspire rage. You can't inspire rage by being rational.

      (And if you want to secretly record women, or anyone else, you don't need a phone. There have been tiny little easily concealed cameras [amazon.com] for decades. )

  • The glasses include six built-in microphones so users can communicate with the chatbot

    So instead of helping users film people illicitly, they are going to record ambient conversations illegally.

  • What about the other billion cameras constantly recording you in public?

    Can we get an app for that too, or do we just have to deal with it?

    • You have to deal with it like you've always dealt with the absence of privacy in public spaces.

    • The solution to those often involves a sawz-all. Certainly you've heard of the Flock camera controversy.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        The fact that Flock cameras are also invading privacy does not make other invasions of privacy more acceptable.

        (And I've already seen five stories about Flock cameras on Slashdot just in the last month; you guys know that there are other things to worry about, ok?)

  • I don't know why stories about this app are making the rounds these days; maybe because people think the name is cute?

    https://github.com/yjeanrenaud... [github.com] has been around for a while, and similar apps for a shorter time.

  • How effective is IR floodlighting? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @09:26AM (#66340922)

    Unlike RF jamming IR floodlighting is harmless to communications.

    What (theoretically of course) would be required for a discreet 360-degree IR flood zone of useful depth?

    Knowing countermeasures makes sense in an irreversibly declining-trust society. What are the most effective? The least disruptive to legitimate (which means communication, not concealed photographic spying) uses?

    • I think an IR strobe light would be better, actually.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      Flickering might work just as well, or better. Less energy and heat needed, and might screw up exposure or auto levelling. I have not tried it.

      The problem is that if you walk around in public with a high brightness IR LED on your head, sooner or later some minimum wage security goon is going to notice their camera is blinded and get upset.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      Most digital cameras filter it out these days. Sadly.

  • Alternative Title. (Score:3)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @09:33AM (#66340940)

    Zuckerberg Fails to Learn the Decade Old Glasshole lesson.

  • Deaf people (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ei4anb ( 625481 ) on Thursday September 17, 2026 @10:17AM (#66341026)
    Deaf people can use those smart glasses to generate a transcription of speech when people are talking to them. I home that use is not stigmatized, it's the one ethical perfect use for the technology.
    • 1. It's not ethical anywhere that two-party consent is required, because Meta will make a recording of it and retain it.

      2. Deaf people have gotten along and will get along just fine without Zuck's pervert glasses. Lip-reading and sign language almost always suffice, and on the few occasions where they don't, a scribbled note works.

      3. If there was the slightest intention of creating these in order to help out the Deaf community, then (a) the Deaf community would have been consulted up-front (b) and as

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      You don't need a camera to transcribe speech. They would be more useful for blind people whereby the camera takes a picture of what's in front of you and describes it audibly.

  • ...increasingly useless
    My feed consists almost entirely of stuff I don't want
    And now they want to charge for it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dysmal ( 3361085 )

      Now they want to charge you for the content quality of content you saw 2 years ago (2024). Next year will come the premium tier where you pay more to see the quality of content you saw 2 years ago (2025).

  • Creepy? (Score:3)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert@slashdot.firen z e e.com> on Thursday September 17, 2026 @12:00PM (#66341170) Homepage

    What exactly makes Meta's glasses "creepy"?
    They are a well known product with a camera. It's no different from walking around carrying a modern phone. Both have cameras in them, the fact one is attached to your head and the other typically held in a hand is really the only difference.

    Many people carry phones in shirt pockets where the lens is above the pocket. These cameras could easily be recording and you'd have no way to know. A phone held in the hand could also be recording, are you always paying attention to what direction the lenses are pointing and if there's a cover over them? Many phones have both front and back lenses too, so they could be recording in either direction.

    If someone is going to be a pervert they are not going to attach a well known and easily recognizable camera to their face, that's really no different than having a traditional video camera on their shoulder. It's extremely obvious that they have a camera.
    A pervert is going to use hidden cameras that are NOT contained within well known camera equipped devices. They will use buttonhole cameras, pen cameras, and all the other various concealed cameras that have existed since long before Meta offered glasses.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teun ( 17872 )
      When using the phone as a camera most will recognize it.
      Wearing the glasses is a whole different story.
  • Maybe think of this:

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Close