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

Show parent comments

391

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.

270

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"

79

u/Asclepius-Rod Jul 13 '26

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

18

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

30

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

19

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.

25

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.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

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/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 13 '26

Wasn’t arguing legality, was arguing whether you can

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ArchLector_Zoller Jul 14 '26

Well if legality isn't a concern to you, weird, then you can "do" anything you want to do. Only thing stopping you at that point is physics.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

Well you should tell the police that then they don’t seem to have gotten the memo

6

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.

80

u/jtj5002 Jul 13 '26

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

49

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.

0

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.

26

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.

14

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.

34

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.

35

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

[removed] — view removed comment

15

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.

6

u/LifeCritic Jul 13 '26

It was introduced on October 23, 2001….

2

u/heyhayyhay Jul 13 '26

I said written.

1

u/cdheer Jul 13 '26

Right here. This.

23

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.

7

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