cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52666693
Another win for privacy <3
You must log in or register to comment.
- ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
I’m sorry, but every article that doesn’t mention the incredibly easy and widespread disabling of the light is sucking meta’s disinformation cock
- stateofaffairs@lemmy.todayEnglish24 hours
Yes. I also like how you framed it. “Disabling of the light is sucking meta’s disinformation cock” is poetic.
1 daydamn, a dremel and some resin to make it appear unmodified again are enough? the dremel is probably optional - my soldering iron would probably suffice, and some transparent tape well placed could also do the job in a pinch. If Meta wanted these glasses to not be so easily modable, they would have implemented at lease SOME check - make the camera look for the light of the led or smth - make it flash a OTP code to be recognized by the cam, which is fucking easy to do
- mustbe3to20signs@feddit.orgEnglish1 day
If anyone had warned this poor retailer in advance… Unfortunately only these lunatic privacy-obsessed and hysteric women foretold this exact scenerio so there was no way to tell.
- 1 day
Wait, what? I did not expect The Netherlands to sell these piece of shit stuff. I had hoped, it would be banned/ prohibited in The Netherlands. It should be.
Parliament has expressed the desire for a clearer ban on these glasses a few weeks ago
https://nos.nl/artikel/2632327-tweede-kamer-wil-breder-en-duidelijker-verbod-op-camerabril
Parliament wants wider and clearer ban on camera glasses
We already have privacy legislation, and it is already not allowed to secretly film someone and share the footage. So parliament is mostly talking about making it more explicit that these camera glasses are not allowed.
They are currently awaiting an advisory on “AI wearables” by the European Committee for Data Protection, which will arrive later this autumn.
- ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 day
it is already not allowed to secretly film someone and share the footage.
But it’s perfectly OK to do as long as you’re the only one watching it afterwards!?
- StabbingSky@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
That’s how most of the world works with regards to filming in public.
- hushable@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Last time I went to The Hague, I saw a dedicated rayban/meta store in the city centre
- unitedwithme@lemmy.todayEnglish1 day
The problem with the light is, it’s incredibly small and dim, so is very easy to miss. Plus, people aren’t aware of what to look for yet because they’re not used to being around this “perv-vision”.
I saw a guy at a sandwich shop with them and he was loud and bragging about them which was the only reason I knew he had them.
I’m honestly shocked they’re allowed in Illinois being there’s the “all party consent” law still in effect where any audio surveillance or recording needs to make all parties aware they’re being recorded. Then add in the BIPA (biometric information privacy act) where you KNOW Meta is going to use face ID or facial recognition to tag or show the owner who’s who.
US https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-glasses-ray-ban-from-public-and-private-use
A Dutch tv comic has addressed this exact problem lately, by going to meta head office and filming employees with the meta glasses:
The most briljant bit: one asks him if he’s filming right now and he says:’ Well you could tell from the light right here, but it’s very easily obscured so you’ll never know’
- 1 day
Hundreds or maybe even thousands or maybe even dozens. Reportedly.
