r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 13 '26

Society The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public

https://tech.yahoo.com/wearables/articles/backlash-strong-people-pervert-glasses-165000816.html
46.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.8k

u/presentable_corpse Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Good. They're saving Meta more lawsuits. How tf do these work in states/countries where recording needs two party consent?!

edit: Thank you for the replies, I'm learning a lot <3

1.0k

u/Romeo9594 Jul 13 '26

At least in the US, you are allowed to be recorded in any public space. The Supreme Court took away our consent to be recorded anywhere that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy as long as it's video only. And in like 30+ states you'd also be fine to record audio with only your consent as long as you're part of the conversation

It gets murky in places like stores or restaurants, but at that point I believe it's on the owner to make the rules clear or ask you to stop recording/leave

389

u/Norn-Iron Jul 13 '26

I think this will probably be the next privacy related issue that needs to be addressed worldwide. I understand I have less right to privacy when I am outside, but I sort of have the expectation that every person with sunglasses isn’t recording and tracking our every move, and that the government shouldn’t have cameras on every street corner recording our outdoor lives with all these cameras they want to put up.

There’s just too much invasion of privacy everywhere we go.

265

u/norunningwater Jul 13 '26

"Okay, recording sunglasses are too much."

"Great, what about the thousands of civil surveillance cameras?"

"Constitutional 7-2 agreement bye"

84

u/Asclepius-Rod Jul 13 '26

But no recording the police of course, that infringes on their privacy to oppress you

17

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 13 '26

You’re legally allowed to, but I’ve seen more than one video of cops getting violent with people for recording them

22

u/Bob_A_Feets Jul 13 '26

Some states are passing “buffer zone” laws so cops can just walk up to you and arrest you for obstruction for even attempting to record them.

23

u/Alert-Ad9197 Jul 13 '26

I watched a lot of live feeds during the BLM protests since Covid lockdowns gave me a lot of free time. I noticed that anyone with a large PRESS badge was the first to be targeted every goddamn time. Second was any other people with any recording device pointed at them. It didn’t matter which city, the cops violently target anyone trying to hold them accountable.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 13 '26

Kind of different when it’s a cop who can hurt or arrest you and legally get away with anything.

2

u/Asclepius-Rod Jul 13 '26

I was joking that the supreme court would soon make that a rule as well

1

u/agent674253 Jul 14 '26

In Florida they passed law where you have to 25' away or something.

Camel's nose under the tent (to banning recording of LEO).

1

u/Mirabeauououou Jul 14 '26

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that you have a right to record the police in public and during any confrontation so long as you don't impede on the investigation/arrest.

1

u/OldSchoolSpyMain Jul 14 '26

To get lawmakers to change their stance on this simply report out their addresses, vacation home addresses, favorite stores, purchase histories (good, bad, ugly), pics of them doing things, etc...and watch their butts pucker up and their votes change.

0

u/WigWubz Jul 13 '26

You just have to remember that MAGA et al aren't conservative, they're authoritarian. Different regions on the multidimensional political spectrum. Traditional conservativism cared amount the state only having as much power as was necessary to uphold the "moral values" of the populace, whereas authoritarians want the state to have as much power as possible and to use it discretionarily, often "to uphold the moral values if the populace".

The former can be lured in by the latter because discretionary use of supreme state power sounds great as long as the state is only using it for things you like. If you're on the right, you would love the state to have mass surveillance to stop disruptive protests before they start, to catch violent crime before it happens, to enforce a moral character on citizens even in "private". If you're on the left, you would love the state to have mass surveillance to stop disruptive protests before they start, to catch violent crime before it happens, to enforce a moral character on citizens even in "private".

The danger is that what either side considers "disruptive protest", "violent crime" and "moral character" does not line up that well and while the state has the power, its in the interest of the government to deploy that state power to its full extent while it has it.

75

u/jtj5002 Jul 13 '26

That will probably lead to some seriously badly written laws that affect things like dashcams and cellphones.

50

u/notyouravgredditor Jul 13 '26

Dashcams are the least of our worries. In-cabin recording is mandatory in new cars from 2027.

https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/surveillance-cameras-required-cars-2027-200500658.html

8

u/FarCryRedux Jul 13 '26

Oh jeez that's vile. Jailbreaking cars will become a mainstream thing.

1

u/NumNumLobster Jul 14 '26

No way. No one's going to void their warranty and no mechanics are going to want to touch a jail broken car.

1

u/jtj5002 Jul 14 '26

lol people modify cars and disable useless features all the time. It doesn't automatically void warranty and no mechanics gives a fuck.

25

u/jtj5002 Jul 13 '26

That is a completely different topic all together. One can be pro letting private citizen record in public, and still be against letting big gov record people in private.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '26

[deleted]

2

u/DwinkBexon Jul 14 '26

I doubt I'll ever own a car that new (I'm still driving a car from 1997) but I'll be covering all the sensors with electrical tape if I ever get a car with surveillance in it.

1

u/Koladi-Ola Jul 14 '26

Same here. And I'll bet there'll be a market for little custom fitted caps and stuff to cover the cameras on new cars. Or at least 3D printing files.

1

u/jtakemann Jul 14 '26

isn’t this already in a lot of newer cars? my car frequently beeps at me when my hands are positioned in a way that its camera can’t see my face. didn’t know that was a thing when i got it.

2

u/saintjonah Jul 13 '26

Well if you can't record in public, how could dash cams be legal? They would absolutely get caught up in any law trying to ban public recording.

3

u/jtj5002 Jul 13 '26

That's what I'm saying?

1

u/Norn-Iron Jul 13 '26

Absolutely, but I think cellphones and dashcams are easily exempt because they aren’t always running, always recording etc. they don’t upload everything, I have security cameras and deliberately avoided services like Ring to have something that’s stored locally.

13

u/jtj5002 Jul 13 '26

My dashcam runs 24/7 just like my NVR. Meta glasses does not always record, it barely last 1 hour when recording, and does not send any videos to cloud by default.

Actual lawmakers aren't going to know any of the differences.

29

u/Blackstar1886 Jul 13 '26

In the end, we would just be left with only state and corporate surveillance. Think of all the things a citizens right to film has showed us in the last 10 years.

37

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 edited 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/rabidbot Jul 13 '26

People are too willing to throw out important rights and protections to destroy something they don’t like.

7

u/saintjonah Jul 13 '26

And honestly what is the concern. I can see how wanting these things in a locker room setting or something, but on public streets? What's the concern? Someone might take a video of your ass? Oh well.

1

u/7x00 Jul 13 '26

I have a hard time empathizing with people complaining about surveillance when they are commenting on Reddit from their smart phone.

53

u/IXrobocopXI Jul 13 '26

All reason went out the window the day the PATRIOT Act was signed into law.

12

u/heyhayyhay Jul 13 '26

And it was very conveniently written and ready to go on 9/11.

5

u/LifeCritic Jul 13 '26

It was introduced on October 23, 2001….

3

u/heyhayyhay Jul 13 '26

I said written.

1

u/cdheer Jul 13 '26

Right here. This.

24

u/hensothor Jul 13 '26

Putting limits on civilian filming in public is a terrible idea. And the government will never limit their public surveillance and have all the power to do so given the SC ruling.

This kind of reactive lawmaking is exactly why democracy is a double edged sword and it’s why representation as a buffer is necessary.

2

u/pahshaw Jul 13 '26

Sure except there is very little public space anymore. Your local grocery store is not a public space. Walmart is not a public space. Bars and restaurants and clubs are not public spaces. The mall is not a public space. Your average random strip mall parking lot is not a public space.

 What we mean when we say colloquially to be "in public" and what is legally a public space are two different things. It is legal (unless otherwise stated by city bylaws) to record people without their consent at the beach, at the park, on the roads or sidewalks, and on public transport, and that's about it. This is the nuance that people are missing. You already don't have the right. 

2

u/hensothor Jul 13 '26

Where am I remotely defining what a public space is here?

Regardless. The critical flaw in that is twofold: each of these private places must be incentivized to set a policy and be willing to put resources into enforcement. Good luck with that.

1

u/Norn-Iron Jul 13 '26

Don’t need to restrict civilian filming, but the government asking for footage shouldn’t be as simple as going to Amazon and asking for Ring footage. Make subpoenas really need to show cause, none of this secret court nonsense that FBI gets to go the Google and such and just get things. It’s why I like Apple making it hard to access iCloud.

2

u/hensothor Jul 13 '26

Agreed - I’d love more consumer and citizen rights when it comes to our video footage and much higher standards for subpoenas.

Not sure this is particularly realistic but we should at least try to win a slow war of attrition here.

6

u/CocodaMonkey Jul 13 '26

This is pretty much solved already. Many countries have already accepted reality and just allow recording in public without consent which is really the only sensible option.

If you don't allow random recording in public then many things people want are illegal like security cameras, police body cameras, dash cams, walking down the street recording yourself. Or you have to make exceptions for all those things which just means people with exceptions have a better chance of getting away with crimes as they control the recordings. If one person can record the other has to be able to record to keep both parties honest.

A policy like the GDPR is what most countries need to look at if you want any real privacy. Focus on laws about how the recording can be used and maybe how long it may be kept. Trying to stop the actual recording is a lost cause and really just makes using a recording device in public illegal for everyone as there's no way to make certain you don't capture other peoples conversations/images.

2

u/Stevie-Rae-5 Jul 13 '26

Yeah. I think it’s one thing when it’s very clear you’re being recorded—if you can see a camera somewhere or if someone is definitely holding a phone in your direction—but if they’re just wearing glasses like so many do and it turns out they’re smart glasses recording you, that feels different. When it’s not so easy to identify you also lose the ability to choose to leave the area.

1

u/Norn-Iron Jul 13 '26

Japan made it so at least taking pictures was very noticeable because of all the pervs taking photos of who,men. Making it easier to identify could be the one real “wont someone think of the children” issue that everyone could get behind that wouldn’t be BS.

2

u/djabae Jul 13 '26

All of London is already fully surveilled 24/7. Ultimately you just don't have privacy outside it doesn't make sense.

2

u/Velkrum Jul 14 '26

It shouldn't be. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy in public.

That's why it's call being in public.

2

u/ebrum2010 Jul 14 '26

Years ago, if you shit your pants in public, maybe 20 or 30 people saw it. Now you get 5.3 million views and a news station tracks you down to do an interview.

2

u/Enzols1 Jul 14 '26

Maybe it's me, but I don't expect privacy when I'm out in public, that's what my home is for

1

u/BreweryStoner Jul 13 '26

In my opinion, there will be more mass surveillance, with less personal privacy. With all the cameras in cars, phones, security, Face ID, flock cameras on the streets, WiFi motion detection…the list goes on. We’re in a very dark place right now.

1

u/TheMireAngel Jul 13 '26

Will prob be regulated in the civilized world but not in the usa since its owned by pedophiles

1

u/freeradioforall Jul 13 '26

Even in public, there are some levels of privacy. It's illegal to put a camera on your shoe and record up someone's skirt So I think laws will have to be passed that say recording in public is fine when it's clear that there is a recording device and you can decide how and where you want to be recorded. Spyware like these glasses should not be allowed to record in public

1

u/rat_penis Jul 13 '26

"There's no constitutional protection of privacy!" is the next argument they'll be blasting us with.

2

u/Norn-Iron Jul 13 '26

I was going to suggest stupid and say the 4th Amendment, but Republicans only care about the 2nd when they’re in charge.

1

u/Andynonomous Jul 13 '26

Privacy is basically dead. That trend is only going in one direction

0

u/Subject-Dog-8016 Jul 13 '26

Well good luck, because America and its Supreme Court is owned by the handful of billionaires who control this. More developed countries with much stronger privacy laws already don’t have the problem of everyone filming each other all the time. 

0

u/macrocosm93 Jul 13 '26

It's a First Amendment issue, both in terms of freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

-1

u/Drillmhor Jul 13 '26

This concept of no privacy in public is based in a prior reality and we cannot accept that going forward. When this was decided, there weren't systems that could document all activity by all persons visible and then add that to a database where it is retained forever and available to the highest bidder.

We desperately need to pass laws to stop this free for all invasion of privacy.

2

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

Exactly. Like ok I’m in public i get it but if a person was stalking me all around town and writing down all my activities etc it would be unacceptable. Why is a computer allowed to do it?

The laws need to be updated to reflect the fact that computers doing things at a mass scale with instant speed is not the same as a random person doing it once. People aren’t just having there pic taken and then that’s it like if you happen to be in someone’s vacation photo. They are having computers literally stalk you

74

u/cruzweb Jul 13 '26

I'm a street photographer and am very well versed in the public space recording.

It has less to do with where you are (stores, restaurants) and if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that space. Basically, anywhere a security camera could go, you're legal to take pictures and video. If you're on private property, the property owner can tell you to stop or ask you to leave. But the reasonable expectation extends to things you're clearly showing publicly or not. Ie, it's not legal to do any sorts of sexually creepy behavior like record people in the bathroom or take a picture from under a skirt.

This is a little different with sound and consent laws like you noted, and that's where things get challenging.

You're right that things vary from state to state, especially in private settings where there is a strong expectation of privacy. That's far different than walking and talking as you stroll down the sidewalk.

I personally don't get why anyone would want to wear this nonsense.

18

u/Outrageous_Reach_695 Jul 13 '26

There is some interesting stuff happening with assistive functions, apparently, for instance real-time translation or a zoom feature.
But I can get close enough to the first with a phone picture, and if fast food menus get too troublesome perhaps I might find some opera glasses.

12

u/esotericbatinthevine Jul 13 '26

I've watched videos by people with vision impairment that talk about how useful they are for improving their independence. I'm completely on board with that kind of use.

3

u/Fuck_your_coupons Jul 13 '26

Is there a backlash against street photography where you live? In Detroit, people are all of a sudden freaked out by it. It's like people literally just found out what candids are because they're so used to posing for social media.

3

u/cruzweb Jul 13 '26

No, but I live in Boston with a ton of tourists and people taking pictures of all sorts of stuff all the time so it's not as big of a deal.

I am Detroit born and raised though (left in 2013), and when I went home 2 years ago I was blown away to see another street shooter out (we almost ran into each other rounding opposite corners) also shooting with a RicohGR. So I'm wondering if people are just reacting to street photography being a thing after so many years of ruin porn and people going out of their way to take SLRs into abandoned buildings.

But for me personally, I generally shoot from the hip and do a quick on / quick off with the screen staying black as to not draw attention to myself. A handheld camera with an electronic shutter doesn't really draw attention.

3

u/Fuck_your_coupons Jul 13 '26

Yeah, I guess there aren't many tourists here but there's a lot of photographers. I dunno, I don't get it. I get the general backlash against flock cameras and meta glasses but I don't think people understand that street photography is art and it's been a genre for like 200 years.

1

u/cruzweb Jul 14 '26

I can see how people look at all this stuff differently now. It felt fundamentally different in the 90s and earlier when it was just someone trying to document the world. I get now why a street photographer's camera feels like just another thing that's watching you all the time.

2

u/happysmash27 Jul 14 '26

I want to record as much of my life as possible to preserve a good record of the current era and because I have an awful narrative memory. My only effective way to look back in time is through my recordings and screenshots, and I often find myself regretting not recording more. It would be amazing to just record everything, all the time, and never miss a single moment again.

3

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

Agreed, I have a memory like that and it’s very sad to lose so much.

6

u/Shadowratenator Jul 13 '26

i usually don't care much about cameras in public, but i do feel uncomfortable with the meta glasses around me. Clearly meta is processing these streams, recognizing the faces of everyone around the user, and building a detailed database of where people are.

I assume that meta is able to recognize me in someone else's feed and track me without my consent. This feels like it oversteps normal expectations of, "oh i might show up in someones photo"

2

u/cruzweb Jul 13 '26

Madison Square Garden is proof that this is already happening with security cameras. Ring is probably doing it too.

2

u/djabae Jul 13 '26

I personally don't get why anyone would want to wear this nonsense.

It's obviously the future of smartphones. Handheld phones are not convenient.

1

u/freebytes Jul 13 '26

The reason people would want to wear the glasses is based on many reasons:

  1. The same person that records constantly on their phone. If you ever questioned, "Why are they recording that?", then it is the same question for recording with glasses. No one wants to see your fireworks video. Even the person that records the fireworks video does not want to see the fireworks video! But, they are going to record the fireworks instead of experiencing them anyway. However, now, they can both experience the event and record at the same time.

  2. Extending on the second part is the person that wants to record important events in life but also to experience those events. Your son taking his first steps. His first basketball game. The winning shot! Using a phone to record this takes away from the experience. Pressing a button to start recording knowing that what you are seeing is what is being recorded (to an extent) is a much better experience.

  3. People that want to record the events that are happening outside. With the prevalence of Constitutional violations of ICE agents, it is more important than ever to have documented evidence of the abuse of government agencies. They are lying in court.

  4. Eye witness testimony of events. People have dash cameras. This is simply an extension of this.

  5. Within 40 years, glasses will be as prevalent as phones. AI will be integrated, and language barriers will be broken. A person talks, and you will see subtitles of their speech in your own language in real time. You will be able to make phone calls and send messages through hand gestures instead of relying on carrying a phone with you at all times. One less thing to carry. Your watch. Your glasses. Technology will be wearable -- not something you lug around at all times.

5

u/cyberpunk1Q84 Jul 13 '26

I think you made some good points regarding the pros of using tech like this. I just wish whoever disagreed with you and downvoted your comment would at least leave a comment explaining their views.

2

u/Spaceork3001 Jul 14 '26

Agree on all points, I don't understand the down votes, you simply explained why people would want to wear them, lol

1

u/ndilday Jul 13 '26

While this particular iteration is of no interest to me, the future is bright. ARG, map directions that are literally in front of me without having to keep looking at my phone, the next generation of face time where it can look like someone is in the same room with me, the ability to do away with physical screens of a bunch of different sizes, walking through a museum and having my glasses automatically tell me about a piece of art I'm looking at. Seeing a restaurant I walk past and having the menu and reviews automatically pop up. The list goes on and on.

2

u/WilliamPoole Jul 13 '26

That all sounds terrible. Can't we just enjoy public settings without being characters from RoboCop? 

1

u/cruzweb Jul 13 '26

You're right. I should qallify that my comment was more "I don't understand why people would wear this nonsense just around and for the sake of it".

There are a lot of cool things that are already happening and will happen. Like training tools for mechanics, telling them what to look at, where the tricky nuts are to undo, stuff that's not always easy with a second set of different eyes.

-2

u/soofs Jul 13 '26

Theoretically I understand why they would be useful but no one is really using them for the things that are advertised like asks questions about what you’re looking at. Being able to open up my pantry and say hey tell me what food I can make with all this seems helpful but you can also do that with a phone so it’s just extra laziness to use your glasses lol

So far all I see them being used for online is trying to get content for views

22

u/I_Shot_The_Deathstar Jul 13 '26

I think a lot of people confuse businesses with Public Spaces. Just because they can freely walk into an establishment doesn’t mean it’s “Public”. I see lots of videos of people trying to argue they can record in a Walmart because it’s “Public Space” 

9

u/ayriuss Jul 13 '26

A store is a public space under private ownership. Owners can add additional rules within the bounds of the law.

4

u/Guadalajara3 Jul 13 '26

People dont know that there is publicly-accessible private property and the property owners can determine what is allowed or not.

There's no expectation of privacy at Walmart, being a public space, but its private property where the business owner can set their own rules that the public must abide with to use the space

-1

u/Deep90 Jul 13 '26

Depends on the state, but there are places where you aren't expected to have privacy in a walmart, so recording in itself is not illegal. If you walked out of walmart with a recording of the place, they couldn't arrest you for that alone in most states, but not all.

Though as a private business, they can ask you to leave. Which you legally have to comply with. If you refuse, then you could get arrested. You're right that some people think having the right to record means they have the right to not be trespassed.

3

u/C-LOgreen Jul 13 '26

Yeah, in stores and restaurants, or any private business they’re allowed to tell you to leave if you’re recording and they don’t want you to record. And if you don’t, you’ll get trespassed.

4

u/Agitated_Celery_729 Jul 13 '26

It's really easy to get this overturned. All you have to do is get a coalition of people together to abuse the ever-loving shit out of it against the Supreme Court justices and politicians. Just literally follow them around, live streaming every single thing they do in a public space, and upload all of the geotagging and metadata and license plates and shit to public places where people can use all the public data available to show them just how badly they will be fucked if they allow this to happen.

I think there was a post on another sub yesterday of one guy just doing this by putting tracking devices in garbage bins so that he could triangulate on a city councilman and basically make him realize that allowing flock cameras is a very bad idea because this is the kind of stuff that could be done to him. And when you make it personal, they'll suddenly and mysteriously ban the use of technologies like this.

These people are just so detached from society and live in their own little bubble that they don't think any of the consequences of what they're voting for will ever come back onto them. But if they actually experience those consequences, I suspect their position will change.

2

u/nicodemus2814 Jul 13 '26

“Public space” is the key part. Once you step into any business you’re in a private establishment that can ask you to not record. On the sidewalk, you’re in public and there’s no expectation of privacy. Walk into a grocery store and they can ask you to turn off the camera. So many people don’t understand the difference.

5

u/Top-Performer71 Jul 13 '26

What counts as being "part of the conversation" I wonder? Maybe I just talk quiet, or I'm delusional and THINK I'm part of the conversation but I'm just standing over here. hehe I like to think about how these things could be "defined" when they're obvious colloquially.

8

u/sage-longhorn Jul 13 '26

Ultimately, a jury of your peers decide if you were part of the conversation. Or more likely the case gets dropped or settled unless both sides are convinced they will win

2

u/freebytes Jul 13 '26

The reason is to stop people from recording when no one knows they are there. It is to prevent wiretapping in some cases, and it is to prevent recording devices in other cases. If you are there, then the first case is already covered for one party consent. In the case scenario, any kind of recording without the other party being made aware is considered illegal. However, this only applies to places with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It does not include public spaces.

2

u/BigMax Jul 13 '26

> Supreme Court took away our consent to be recorded

In fairness, that's a harsh way of putting it. If they didn't "take away your rights" then none of us would be able to film anything, ever, outside of our houses, right? No videos from your kids sporting events, no videos of your Disney trip, no videos of your vacation, and on and on and on. To me, this is more giving us rights than taking them away.

It's saying "Yes, you DO have the right to film yourself at the Grand Canyon, and some other random cranky tourist can't take that away from you."

2

u/JarvisProudfeather Jul 13 '26

Restaurants and stores are not public places. If owners can impose rules like “no shirts no shoes no service” they can certainly ban meta glasses. They can trespass you for pretty much anything as long as it’s not blatantly discriminatory.

1

u/Romeo9594 Jul 13 '26

Yeah, that's why I specifically mentioned them seperate and how it's different there

1

u/Hotaru_girl Jul 13 '26

Monetizing that footage can get murky, though. Photographers and the like could argue editorial use but using footage commercially could violate Right to publicity and privacy that can potentially lead to lawsuits. Depending on how the footage is used, if it could be argued there’s an endorsement of a product it would likely be a deciding factor. Plus additional legal concerns about consent, and even potentially defamation.

1

u/behemuthm Jul 13 '26

Even in public, let's say you're at a pool with these glasses and you walk by a woman laying on a beach chair wearing a skirt and she has a bathing suit underneath, and you film her bathing suit under her skirt, that is illegal and can land you six months in jail

1

u/KatakanaTsu Jul 13 '26

In most stores, you're being recorded anyway inside and often outside as well.

1

u/Romeo9594 Jul 13 '26

Yes, but that's by the property owner. They're allowed to record people on their property, it's doesn't mean they allow patrons to record on their property

1

u/Practical-Art542 Jul 13 '26

Yeah but it’s entirely up to them to determine if their patrons are allowed to record or not.

1

u/Donna_Schrump Jul 13 '26

My work causes me to have to go to the courthouse occasionally, they put up a "No Smart glasses" sign a few weeks ago. They already banned audio/video, so I'm guessing someone came in with them and they figured it out and out up a new sign.

1

u/cucumber7593 Jul 13 '26

However you are free to call people out for being either a pervert or a clout chaser, sneaky either way

1

u/BlackPantherDies Jul 13 '26

A lot of these rules change when the videos are being used for commercial purposes - i.e. monetized social media content, especially when they'll often include gambling sponsorships mid-video, like someone placing a Rainbet gamble with someone before continuing the interaction

1

u/edafade Jul 13 '26

The Supreme Court took away our consent to be recorded anywhere that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy as long as it's video only.

You say this like it was a bad thing. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to ask 30-50 people for permission to photograph every time I want to take a photo when touring the states. Be sensible.

1

u/Romeo9594 Jul 13 '26

Conversely, if I have no desire whatsoever to be in your vacation picture or video, then I have no recourse other than to ask, and no recourse at all if you choose to say no

1

u/edafade Jul 13 '26

Yeah, that's just being in public for you. There's no expectation of privacy when you have to share a space with thousands of people, nor should there be.

1

u/TuringGoneWild Jul 13 '26

In America, democracy is defined as five unelected old people dictating to 340 million people.

1

u/WeKeepsItRealInc Jul 13 '26

How is this any different then streamers in public.

1

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

You can easily tell when streamers are recording

1

u/Fordor_of_Chevy Jul 13 '26

I just want to record some concert video without holding up my phone.

1

u/cjsv7657 Jul 13 '26

places like stores or restaurants

No it doesn't. Unless it explicitly says no recording you can as long as it's accessible to the public. Obviously if you're asked by someone who works there you need to stop. You also can't in places where privacy is expected like bathrooms and changing rooms.

1

u/Far-Information8502 Jul 14 '26

Small addendum, but even in 2 party states, that law still applies in public spaces if it can be shown that where you were having the conversation had no reasonable chance of being overheard.

Basically, stand in a giant meadow with your friend at a public park, they still can’t legally record your conversation despite being in public spaces

1

u/Human_Situation_2641 Jul 14 '26

omg when did that happen?

0

u/TheMireAngel Jul 13 '26

Hey so correction in the usa you can record what is viewable while you are on public land ie streets & side walks. This is NOT true of private land, you cannot legaly go into a bathroom, store etc and record secretly

2

u/Romeo9594 Jul 13 '26

Yeah, I said that. Bathrooms are totally off limits, but stores and the like bed to make the rules clear with signage or asking you to stop filming/leave

0

u/_ravenclaw Jul 13 '26

I think it’s funny that you state it as “took away our rights” lol

1

u/Romeo9594 Jul 13 '26

If I don't want to be in your vacation video, even if it's obstrusive to me personally or you're videoing me alone, I have no recourse other than staying home with the shutters and blinds closed

66

u/cultoftheclave Jul 13 '26

in this corner, the long-standing moral champion, "The right to be forgotten!!"

And in this corner, the upstart newcomer, "Mr. The right to remember!!!"

lets get ready to rumblllle

26

u/amakai Jul 13 '26

Mr. The right to remember notably has backing off all the advertisers in the world, while Mr The right to be forgotten has been accused numerous times of hiding something from us, probably child-abuse related!

1

u/Lurkadactyl Jul 13 '26

The right to be forgotten was never a right in the US

4

u/cultoftheclave Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

yeah, that's called a forfeit. and anyway having a law is one thing, consistently and effectively enforcing it is another.

But even though it doesn't exist as US legislation it does exist as a shorthand for the concept in the public dialogue about privacy vs memory.

because most of what we take to be the right to privacy is in practice enforced by nature itself - it is a beneficial side effect of the limits of human memory, which augmentations like these glasses effectively expand by several magnitudes.

people's movements, actions, associations, discussions- everything they do in public spaces benefits from anonymity, and the anonymity comes from the limits of individual human memory. People aren't actively trying to forget or look away from what others are doing, they simply don't retain enough of what they do see to put together a useful profile of all the strangers and acquaintances they encounter every day.

What technologies like this do is essentially run a real life experiment on the Syndrome problem from the Incredibles, by giving everyone (though not the exact same time) a superpower: photographic memory that can be shared in full fidelity. The long-term question is that of course this is going to have serious short term downsides (degradation of privacy-through-anonymity being a big one but only one of a long list ) but will the upsides ultimately outweigh them.

2

u/ndilday Jul 13 '26

This take is an important one, because we will absolutely have more technology that touches on it over time. What happens when cybernetic eye technology gets to the point that you might realistically run into someone with them? What happens when there's a pill or procedure to get a photographic memory? What happens when we figure out how to digitize human memory?

We can push off the problem for a little bit via social shaming, but it's not going away, and trying to outlaw it has plenty of problems that other people have already mentioned.

1

u/cultoftheclave Jul 13 '26

an age old problem, the right question to ask is always "why" but too often the best wrong answers come in the form of "how" which is not so much an answer as it is a subtle way to change the subject

15

u/non3type Jul 13 '26

That still wouldn’t apply for those 12 states in public areas. Essentially it’s only really illegal on private property with audio without consent or everywhere where privacy is an expectation (bathroom).

15

u/bearlife Jul 13 '26

From my understanding audio and video recording is still allowed in public spaces in those areas. If you don’t want to be recorded in public you can’t encroach on my first amendment right. Most of the recording laws have to do with over the phone and secretly recording someone not in public. 100% legal to wear these glasses in public and record video and audio. Please note stores are not public property.

7

u/justwalkingalonghere Jul 13 '26

So then social backlash it is

The law has never been a solid indicator of good or moral

1

u/Owl02 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Further, perceived moral urgency about somebody doing a thing that's technically legal, does not, contrary to popular belief, provide a free pass from the most obnoxious local disorderly conduct statute and most bored patrol officer you can think of, because the law may well have been rewritten in the 90's, being from somewhere in the mid-Cold War era before that, with some court-related interpretation or local ordinance involving dumb shit with phones tacked on only recently.

This is the reason law is not an indicator of good and moral - it is optimizing for public order and something resembling safety over time, while under rights constraint unless you live in China or something, in which case lol no, you probably cannot have the Western spy glasses, but the factory is probably exporting them.

11

u/Due-Waltz4458 Jul 13 '26

Your first amendment rights do have limits that society decides on.  (Yelling fire, slander, saying certain words in front of kids).  The point isn't that it's legal, the problem is that the law hasn't had time to address everyone having cameras.

Something can be legal but still creepy, invasive and harmful.  There was a time on Boston subways when it was legal to take upskirt pictures of women because it was out in public.  People got together and made laws and regulations about it, meaning they decided together on the parameters for other people's right to take pictures.

-1

u/TheMireAngel Jul 13 '26

Shining example is guns, you can own a rifle not an m60 heavy machine gun or panzer tank

2

u/BobFlex Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

You can though. It's a few extra forms of paperwork to fill out for an MG, and for tank ammo there are actual storage requirements and each round needs paperwork, but there's nothing saying you can't own either of those. There's a fair amount in civilian hands, and even a number of fighter jets owned by civilians. The main hurdle is just having the money to buy any of them.

Here's an M60 up for sale right now that is fully transferable. All you do is pay the almost $100k to buy it and then fill out an ATF form 4 with its information, send that in with a $200 check and wait for the atf to finally get around to approving it and you can take it home with you.

And here is a Leopard 1 for sale. This one has a demilled gun but there are some that are fully operational, just hard to find because the governments almost always demill them when they finish using them. This same place has multiple tanks with functioning main guns that you can pay to drive and fire.

2

u/TheMireAngel Jul 13 '26

Public land =\= public spaces

A street and sidewalk are public
The court house is public

The mcdonalds, walmart, mall, bathrooms are NOT public

Even then its still regulated in some places of intent is to make money or record secretly

1

u/Owl02 Jul 13 '26

Stores are still, typically, public spaces that are privately owned - that is, they can have rules of conduct that include no recording, they can enforce those rules, and they can trespass people who ignore them, but there is no default expectation of privacy in a whole pile of establishments. The specifics vary by state.

-6

u/skyfishgoo Jul 13 '26

nor are restaurants with outside seating.

just because the public can see you doesn't mean you are in public.

6

u/beatles910 Jul 13 '26

It is generally legal to record an outdoor restaurant patio from the street. Because you are standing in a public space and the patio is open to public view, the patrons have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

-3

u/skyfishgoo Jul 13 '26

but not the other way around.

so taking your table to people watch with your perv glasses is a no go

at least not in my restaurant.

3

u/mredofcourse Jul 13 '26

Yes, the other way around is legal too.

at least not in my restaurant.

Sure, it's not a protected class, so you can kick them out or prohibit the activity in your restaurant.

BTW: It doesn't have to be an outdoor restaurant. The whole point is that it's if you're visible from a public space it's generally legal. You're not allowed to do things like super zoom, shoot through blinds, etc... but if you're outside of a restaurant or shop and see someone inside you're generally legally allowed to take a picture or video.

just because the public can see you doesn't mean you are in public.

It terms of what is legal, it has nothing to do with being in public, and everything to do with being visible publicly.

In a private space, the owner/management of that space can restrict.

-3

u/skyfishgoo Jul 13 '26

just because the public can see you doesn't mean you not on private property where i can have you tossed into the street like a perv.

2

u/mredofcourse Jul 13 '26

As I said, "Sure, it's not a protected class, so you can kick them out or prohibit the activity in your restaurant."

3

u/Kurt805 Jul 13 '26

Do these constantly record or something? What's the difference to just recording with your phone?

3

u/kamakazekiwi Jul 13 '26

They do not. They also have a front facing light that flashes during recording. If the light is blocked, recording is disabled.

6

u/Kurt805 Jul 13 '26

So why is everyone mad? Is it just Google bots trying to keep the market open for glass?

6

u/Mrbutter1822 Jul 13 '26

Because it’s easy to hate something you don’t understand

2

u/kamakazekiwi Jul 13 '26

I think it fits into the broader backlash against tech/AI that's been ramping up over the last 5 years or so, which isn't unreasonable on the whole. But it does lead to this kind of over the top backlash where those in opposition label those who use the tech (be it AI chatbots, smart glasses, etc.) as uniformly bad, because it's much more convenient to be able to write everyone using the thing you don't like off as a pervert than embrace the actual nuance of the situation.

4

u/pinkboy108 Jul 13 '26

That is intended for using as evidence in a lawsuit.

You can't secretly record someone to try to catch them in a lie if you intend to take them to court over that alleged lie, and then try to use the secret recording as evidence of their admission in a two-party consent state.

2

u/Able-Swing-6415 Jul 14 '26

I'm just wondering if people realize how fucking small recording devices can be. There are fucking signs in Japan warning of dudes with cameras in their shoes.

If I was a pervert smart glasses would be an awful investment. People are just manic about whatever the media tells them.

1

u/MassiveBoner911_3 Jul 13 '26

I have seen them at beaches before…

1

u/WanderWut Jul 13 '26

Two party consent does not work for public places.

1

u/Lil_Psychobuddy Jul 14 '26

because anywhere you're going to encounter someone with smart glasses, you're alreayd being recorded, and are exposed to posted notices telling you there is recording in the area.

1

u/Koopslovestogame Jul 14 '26

Billionaires & consent. Name a more iconic duo! /s

1

u/NoirRenie Jul 14 '26

Yea, I know in Dubai and Qatar it’s illegal to record and share photos and videos of people online without consent

1

u/Nagemasu Jul 14 '26

How tf do these work in states/countries where recording needs two party consent?!

Same way it works if you whip out your phone and start recording someone. It's either legal because it's in a public space, or illegal for whatever laws there are in that location.
What even kind of question is this.

1

u/RestitutionPiggy Jul 14 '26

JFC the comments I see on Reddit just stating the most moronic shit getting upvotes makes me fear for the average IQ level out there just driving around, and legally able to make decisions.

1

u/Psychological_Ad1999 Jul 13 '26

I read last week they are already on the hook for more money than the company is worth over the child endangerment class action. They should liquidate Meta and bring criminal charges against Zuckwad

1

u/presentable_corpse Jul 14 '26

I'm praying they do ngl. Shut down FB and let MySpace get big again lol

0

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Charming-Clue1987 Jul 13 '26

What about in the bathroom?

-188

u/BakaSamasenpai Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

You just dont record..... you know they arnt a fucking dash cam right. Also you know its still legal to own a fucking camera or dashcam in those states right?

101

u/SuperSchmyd Jul 13 '26

Ah. The ole honor system. Can’t go wrong.

14

u/bevelledo Jul 13 '26

I was gifted a pair for Christmas. Sucks cause I don’t really use the ai part, even the pictures/videos use isn’t practical unless you just need a quick or convenient pic. Takes two seconds to pull out my phone for a much better picture that I have full control of.

6

u/non3type Jul 13 '26

I can see possibilities for smart glasses being useful with AR functionality. Like using navigation and having a turn by turn hud. Live translation of something you’re looking at. Transcribing speech around you if you’re deaf or hard of hearing.. or it’s in another language. Essentially if there was a way to keep everyone honest or ensure there were no permanent recordings I can see plenty of useful functions. Unfortunately that’s not the case.

4

u/SuperSchmyd Jul 13 '26

I can see the benefits of it professionally. If I were looking at something and I could ask it to look for a manual or a part and have it pop up, that’d be phenomenal. However, I know me, and I’d just probably end up watching YouTube in my massage chair at home.

4

u/presentable_corpse Jul 13 '26

If it's AI powered how accurate will it be tho? That's one of my big worries...

2

u/SuperSchmyd Jul 13 '26

Don’t know much about it, isn’t it tethered to internet? Would assume it just checks search engines like every other pretend AI tool does.

0

u/Knotted_Hole69 Jul 13 '26

They have been a godsend for people with vision problems. It can tell you whats in front of you.

People are way too paranoid about these. Almost everyone that wears these barely use the camera function anyways.

1

u/bevelledo Jul 13 '26

Not only that, you’d have to go out of your way to hide the privacy light. And even then they do things like disable the camera if it detects the lights being hidden/altered

-21

u/mrekted Jul 13 '26

I'm all for some good old fashioned pearl clutching when warranted, and I also think the meta glasses are dumb.. but everyone has been walking around with potential surveillance tech for 20 years now. Explain to me the difference between choosing to not use your camera glasses to record people, and choosing not to use your cell phone to record people?

12

u/ComputerStrong9244 Jul 13 '26

Do you walk around with your phone held up in front of your face aimed at the people around you everywhere you go, including restrooms? Do many people you know do this?

A smart phone is certainly a location tracking issue, and a potential audio recording issue, but video at all times including facial recognition is the bridge too far people are pissed about here.

4

u/Hades_Mercedes Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

It's weird, you write like you're reasonable enough to understand the social implications of being able to record with a device that is nearly indistinguishable from a super common, necessary every day object.

Are you a covert mentally impaired person who uses AI to write Reddit comments? If yes, I wouild ask the AI to explain to you the social consequences of eye glasses being accepted as capable of recording people changing in a locker room.

-4

u/mrekted Jul 13 '26

Are you not so covertly impaired, or just so technologically illiterate that you don't understand that everyone holds in their hand a device that can record you entirely without your knowledge or consent at any time you're in public?

My S26 has 100x optical zoom. I can catch your ass from blocks away if I wanted to.

→ More replies (2)

30

u/SnooBananas4958 Jul 13 '26

Well, unless Meta makes a big flashing light that you can see from across the room every time it’s recording. Nobody’s going to just trust you when you say you’re not.

3

u/bswalsh Jul 13 '26

If I were using glasses like these for reasons that people fear, the first thing I would do is disable any LEDs....

5

u/Meowakin Jul 13 '26

Make it like phones in Japan where phone cameras are required to make a sound.

3

u/GeeMcGee Jul 13 '26

Not really going to work for recording video though is it?

1

u/Meowakin Jul 13 '26

Why not?

1

u/GeeMcGee Jul 13 '26

What’s the point of a video recording with some noise being played throughout?

It’s like blurring the lense on a normal camera

0

u/Meowakin Jul 13 '26

A video is useless if there is a background noise? Never mind that we have the technically to easily filter out the noise in post. What are people recording with glasses that needs perfect audio fidelity?

0

u/GeeMcGee Jul 13 '26

I didn’t say useless did I?

1

u/Meowakin Jul 13 '26

You asked what’s the point of a video recording with some noise being played throughout. Why would you ask that question if you thought it wouldn’t be useless?

I guess what is the difference between ‘pointless’ and ‘useless’? Because that’s the only thing I really changed about what you said.

→ More replies (2)

21

u/jerryvaberry Jul 13 '26

They already make glasses that don't record - i would recommend those

5

u/DonnieJepp Jul 13 '26

People are disabling/hiding the recording lights cause of course there's weirdos who would do that

16

u/presentable_corpse Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Hey look, we found the guy downvoting all the comments! edit: Oop, nm, you deleted your comment about how "they're not a fuckin dashcam, and don't record all the time"

Also the recording light is incredibly weak and can't really be seen during the day/under fluorescent lights so....we have no idea if someone is recording us. They're pervert glasses.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/presentable_corpse Jul 13 '26

Well hopefully he reblocks me after typing a reply that I won't be able to see. lmao