this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
771 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

85142 readers
5278 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EatingOnions@lemmy.world 67 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Another privacy epidemic unfolding, only waiting when it auto link people you see om the streets to their social media profiles

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 27 points 1 day ago

Didnt that already get done to demonstrate the complete lack of privacy caused by this?

Checking....

Yeah this was what I was thinking of: https://stateofsurveillance.org/news/rsac-meta-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-hacked-live-demo-2026/

[–] kevinsky@feddit.nl 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

It's the whole entire point of these glasses so this surely cannot be a surprise.

I'm just waiting for bans on these glasses now, because that is inevitably where this is headed as the public at large simply cannot be trusted to handle this kind of technology responsibly.

And the harder these glasses become to spot, the broader the bans will be, undoubtedly right up the point where they'll just straight up refuse anybody with any kind of thick framed glasses.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GhostFace@lemmy.today 2 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

People keep bringing up that companies do it but at least companies want to exploit everyone equally in profitable ways. Companies aren't human beings.

It's a lot different compared to being preyed upon by another person who might want to harm you emotionally or physically.

[–] stellargmite@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

I’m not convinced the distinction is necessary. It’s also wrong to say they don't discriminate in who they choose to exploit for profit . Many many examples of double standards occurring in different regions by the same corporation. Behaving in one way in the global north, then the opposite in the global South for example. Exploitation of labour for one. Yeh the name of the game is profit at all costs including human if they get away with it. But the scale compared to what an individual bad actor can achieve (though real and scary for sure) is not worth comparing. Companies ARE made up of human beings. Hiding behind incorporations and limited liabilities does not always shelter corporate bad actors in regions with proper regulation. Yeh plenty to be cynical about but still, dont give these blood thirsty profit seekers any free pass on their behavior.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am so lucky I have been to french quarter celebrations before smartphones. Some things are meant to be experienced and not documented.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Absolutely disgusting.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Look, if someone is wearing these and not announcing it, i'm going to punch them. When people get their shit lit up over this, people will get the message.

We need to nationalize two-party consent for this

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheEntity@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (20 children)

Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological "advances", and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone's attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don't because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Does anyone have a Cyberpunk glitch-face counter we can start wearing to avoid facial recording?

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Idk. Bans on recording someone in public without their consent, feel like a really difficult thing to properly enforce -- with or without the glasses. The number of people doing it with Smartphones already, in most jurisdictions at least, would make such a law's wide-spread enforcement seem implausible. And I mean, you're in a public area, so you sorta need to expect less privacy.... because it's in public?

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Most places have laws on this. Often, it is legal to film/take photos, but not to focus on individuals.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Ya at least you can tell if someone's pointing a phone at you and recording you. Can't do that so easily when its glasses though. I knew these things were gonna be trouble from the start.

Dumb ficks buying these and helping the ultra wealthy expand their surveillance network. Jfc

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just punch people wearing Ray-Bans on sight. Really bend those frames.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›