> The camera is disabled when people try to do this. Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
> Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
The problem is the LED isn’t enabled currently when live streaming content to Instagram or Facebook. Most live streams can just be captured and recorded by someone else. This is a huge cap in privacy and safety even if the LED was fully functional without tampering.
> Does everyone know when you're live streaming? Yes. A white LED on the front of the glasses lights up while you're streaming to let people around you know the camera is active.
> Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
Until it's hard enough people figure out how easy it is to fit a camera in a regular glass flame, and how much cheaper it is over paying Meta for the privilege.
> Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
These reactionary takes on HN suck. No, it's not easy for the average person to disable the camera on these glasses. They do continuously make it harder to do so. At this point anyone interested in spy glasses is better off buying one of the many other glasses with cameras in it.
Alternatively, sounds like you're a user of the glasses and don't like what these comments might reflect on you if more people agree with them?
Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
What exactly is your threat model? "It is possible to work around" every single security control that has ever existed. Saying it "is possible" to work around a control is an utterly meaningless statement. At what budget? With what skill level? With what frequency and likelihood?
If the intent is to deter weirdos that would try to disable the blinking light, then yes, their mitigations have been extraordinarily effective and most of these weirdos buy other cheaper and more discreet camera glasses.
Yes your comment is incorrect.
It’s completely free of the nuance and real moral debate that needs to be had and adds nothing interesting to the discussion.
How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?
If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.
I was, however had, quite surprised when I saw them used by "auditors" (here, I refer to e. g. "auditors" on youtube specifically). Now this brought a problem for me, because auditors on the one hand, bring interesting encounters, even if they (or some of them) meta-jabait and provoke (again, only some of them at best, in many cases they don't really). But when they use spy glasses to serve greedy mega-corporations, this totally shifts the whole "audit" instantly, because then they also support evil Facebook, Google or what not. And that kind of runs counter to the whole audit-idea. So far I only saw one use the facebook spy glasses, but I wonder whether he even gave any thought to this. I understand why he uses spy glasses, but I don't understand why he does it to benefit Facebook. That IMO puts the whole idea behind audits instantly in a wrong angle. I haven't seen others use it, so perhaps it just was one or few, but they don't seem to really think anymore. Some audit channels were also censored by Google in the last weeks, others were not, but this just amplifies the whole problem here. Imagine if the spy glasses were made by Google. And the auditors depend on Google money. It's really strange. The whole setup does not work well. I understand that they want to make money, but why would I want to support facebook-agents using spy glasses at all? That makes no sense, so I decided when an audit-channel uses facebook spy glasses or anyone else's corporations spy-glasses, I won't watch anything from there. Same with AI content - anyone using AI content I instantly add to a perma-ban list. I recently saw more and more people use AI slop images and AI filters. This is soooooo horrible. These people don't seem to understand that AI slop kills interest. Yet some swear by it - it is fascinating. Those who use AI slop, can not be convinced that using AI slop is detrimental. They have been converted into AI skynet servants.
Turns out assault and/or battery are already very much illegal too and suspecting someone is a wanker isn’t on the list of things that get you out of a charge.
Wouldn’t recommend unless you really, really like nutraloaf
In the novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (great read, very pertinent as well for the discussion of AGI and what is consciousness), an "abglanz" is like a digital identity shield that hides a person's face behind a shifting weird pattern of colours. I wonder how far off we are from everyone just retreating into higher privacy settings and opt out.
I think the panic around smart glasses cameras is so strange, it's SO much easier to be a creep with a phone recording. You'll see it all the time if you're paying attention. Everyone is already on their phones anyhow, and especially with "creep shots" your head is a massive giveaway; with a smart phones, not so much, it can be placed anywhere. What practically could someone record without their knowledge that isn't already widely and more easily available through a smartphone? I just don't get it.
I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone. Feels like everyone is focusing on the wrong thing, given that level of privacy has already been eradicated and no one is going to give up their phones.
Disagree. It’s very context dependent which would be more noticeable.
Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.
It has happened to me actually with the snap spectacle things.
Idk why we’re acting like people are hysterical the dangers of always on displays and cameras versus phones that go in pockets have been debated for over a decade now with Google glass. People do not like it for legitimate reasons.
You think the phone has to be raised to be recording? How do you think perverts do upskirts, etc? Phone recording is very much less obvious, especially since everyone is already on their phones.
There is no "panic". It is more a realization that it is becoming difficult to notice recording devices.
I assume the most problematic scenarios are private. Private meetings. Private conversations. Private encounters of every kind in general. Environment in which ordinary people used to have good enough confidence that, unless they see a phone or a camera, they are not being recorded. It no longer is that simple.
Confirming, at least to some extent, that there is no recording going on may now require confronting the other person. And asking them to remove their glasses or hand them over for inspection might be considered rude.
As a result, I think that it might make people more suspicious and less trusting, especially when meeting new people for the first time.
But during private meetings, private conversations, etc people are already 99.99% of the time on their phones. Smart glasses have way less battery life and recording time (I think Meta's is 15-30 seconds now?) Wouldn't it be easier to just record a conversation on your phone without knowledge? You can even have the app running in the background. I haven't seen a complaint yet about them that isn't already worse, more discrete, or already available on a phone.
I downloaded and tried it. It’s a nice app. I was surprised to see 400+ other Bluetooth devices in range. I think it’s neet to explore the invisible digital world we have all been made subject to.
Thank you for sharing this. If I get a notification about one near me, I will make sure to very aggressively search for it. If I find that whoever wore it has no practical purpose for it, I will likely humiliate them on the spot.
59 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 66.0 ms ] thread> Can’t people just cover up or disable the LED?
> The camera is disabled when people try to do this. Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
> Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
https://actionstreamer.com/blog/how-to-live-stream-on-meta-r...
Think through how realistic an attack this really is…
Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
What exactly is your threat model? "It is possible to work around" every single security control that has ever existed. Saying it "is possible" to work around a control is an utterly meaningless statement. At what budget? With what skill level? With what frequency and likelihood?
If the intent is to deter weirdos that would try to disable the blinking light, then yes, their mitigations have been extraordinarily effective and most of these weirdos buy other cheaper and more discreet camera glasses.
No it doesn't sound like that!
How many people are working around the safeguards? How prevalent is harm caused by creeps secretly filming on these glasses vs doing other creepy things? Have these glasses tangibly changed the creeps doing creeping landscape?
If you can’t answer those questions, it’s reactionary. That’s that it means.
Their job is to scan the app store for any app that is anti-tech and has at least 1k downloads and write an article about how there's huge backlash.
I was, however had, quite surprised when I saw them used by "auditors" (here, I refer to e. g. "auditors" on youtube specifically). Now this brought a problem for me, because auditors on the one hand, bring interesting encounters, even if they (or some of them) meta-jabait and provoke (again, only some of them at best, in many cases they don't really). But when they use spy glasses to serve greedy mega-corporations, this totally shifts the whole "audit" instantly, because then they also support evil Facebook, Google or what not. And that kind of runs counter to the whole audit-idea. So far I only saw one use the facebook spy glasses, but I wonder whether he even gave any thought to this. I understand why he uses spy glasses, but I don't understand why he does it to benefit Facebook. That IMO puts the whole idea behind audits instantly in a wrong angle. I haven't seen others use it, so perhaps it just was one or few, but they don't seem to really think anymore. Some audit channels were also censored by Google in the last weeks, others were not, but this just amplifies the whole problem here. Imagine if the spy glasses were made by Google. And the auditors depend on Google money. It's really strange. The whole setup does not work well. I understand that they want to make money, but why would I want to support facebook-agents using spy glasses at all? That makes no sense, so I decided when an audit-channel uses facebook spy glasses or anyone else's corporations spy-glasses, I won't watch anything from there. Same with AI content - anyone using AI content I instantly add to a perma-ban list. I recently saw more and more people use AI slop images and AI filters. This is soooooo horrible. These people don't seem to understand that AI slop kills interest. Yet some swear by it - it is fascinating. Those who use AI slop, can not be convinced that using AI slop is detrimental. They have been converted into AI skynet servants.
it's even on the site
> Most pairs keep advertising while worn, so you can usually hear them, but a few standalone models stay silent.
Standing too long in one aisle lets them know where you like to browse in the grocery store.
When they first rolled these out in the US at least a decade ago I used to get notifications all the time.
Stuff like “Near Well’s Fargo? Balance your checkbook.” As notifications.
BLE is actually pretty secure, but it does advertise, and some folks take advantage of that.
Wouldn’t recommend unless you really, really like nutraloaf
I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone. Feels like everyone is focusing on the wrong thing, given that level of privacy has already been eradicated and no one is going to give up their phones.
Maybe the reason you think it’s harder to spot when you’re being recorded on glasses is because… it’s never actually happened to you. The people who are creeps are in the minority, and they’re executing their creepy behaviour independently of the technology available to them.
Idk why we’re acting like people are hysterical the dangers of always on displays and cameras versus phones that go in pockets have been debated for over a decade now with Google glass. People do not like it for legitimate reasons.
I assume the most problematic scenarios are private. Private meetings. Private conversations. Private encounters of every kind in general. Environment in which ordinary people used to have good enough confidence that, unless they see a phone or a camera, they are not being recorded. It no longer is that simple.
Confirming, at least to some extent, that there is no recording going on may now require confronting the other person. And asking them to remove their glasses or hand them over for inspection might be considered rude.
As a result, I think that it might make people more suspicious and less trusting, especially when meeting new people for the first time.