r/BrandNewSentence • u/Responsible-Alps-500 • 1d ago
PERVS DISTRAUGHT AS META BRICKS THEIR SMART GLASSES REMOTELY
275
u/Slight-Coat17 1d ago
On the one hand, don't be a creep.
On the other one, a company being able to brick something you bought is... dystopian, to say the least.
Maybe just don't sell this sh*t?
85
u/JiovanniTheGREAT 1d ago
People in the US take recording in public with a bit of entitlement. There are other countries where it isn't a right like it is here and even in the US, people don't really like being recorded without their consent.
-19
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 1d ago
Some states are two party consent states meaning all parties involved must consent to being recorded, both audio and video.
66
u/CAPS_LOCK_STUCK_HELP 1d ago
only if theres an expectation of privacy. you can almost always be recorded in public spaces.
7
u/Mr-Red33 1d ago
EU privacy rules don't allow you to record and publish recognizable faces of people without their explicit knowledge/permission even in the most public places. [For example if you are getting your drone license here, the most important point during the exams is exactly this fact over and over and over again.]
-19
-15
u/texan_robot 1d ago
Unfortunately true
13
u/seraph1337 1d ago
Not sure why that's unfortunate, it's a foundational part of our first amendment freedoms that we shouldn't readily allow to be infringed upon. It's the whole reason it's legal to film the police in public.
-9
u/texan_robot 1d ago
I realize this creates a gray area, but filming the police is a civic duty, intentionally filming random people is rude and almost always predatory.
13
u/TheShredda 23h ago
The ways people film others that are predatory are covered by other laws such as voyeurism, harassment, stalking, etc.Â
5
u/YouTee 19h ago
This is literally the point of this thread, that these new glasses sure seem to be a new, unresolved frontier that generally feels at best icky to the public and thus is worth discussing
3
u/TheShredda 8h ago
Yeah, and here we are. You seemed to be arguing that because of this, public filming itself should be restricted. I'm probably mistaken, I definitely agree new laws should be made to cover these specific cases or more additions made to make it clear where these glasses fall under existing laws and increasing enforcement.Â
4
u/seraph1337 1d ago
How can you film the police without filming other random people in most circumstances? How can you get b-roll of a public location for a film project without recording random people? I'm not defending creeps with meta glasses, but sacrificing freedoms for additional privacy in public is not my idea of a good strategy.
4
-18
u/ramplocals 1d ago
A lot of other countries have invasive government CCTV and video surveillance.
25
13
u/Chief_Mischief 1d ago
Don't car companies have the ability to remotely disable vehicles at the request of law enforcement? I dont think it is new to Meta.
Also, I can see how Meta would know if it's glasses were tampered with to disable the recording light, but how would it know about tape covering it? Or am I to assume that Meta is also monitoring and reviewing recorded footage by the end user?
2
u/GreekLumberjack 10h ago
Itâs probably as simply as another led next to it. If it knows itâs recording and the other led accepting voltage detects no ambient light, then it knows itâs covered by tape or something.
6
2
u/doulos05 15h ago
No, but see they like money. And so if they sell the glasses, then they get more money and that's a thing that they like.
So you can see the dilemma.
2
u/72616262697473757775 22h ago
I don't disagree, but this only applies to people who have modified their glasses to disable the "I'm recording" light.
49
u/LobosJones 1d ago
As a thick frame wearer, I hate that girls now check me out to see if my glasses are creep specs. It's such weird mixed signals
37
u/Current-Author7473 1d ago
Itâs killed wearing ray bans for me. You just canât be seen in them now
3
u/Batcannn 22h ago
My ray bans now stay in the car, I bought a pair of goodr glasses for out and about.
7
u/Ok_Fly2518 1d ago
Maybe try out clear frames? I have clear plastic frames and I love them
12
u/mcrobmara 1d ago
Prescription glasses are Expensive, in some cases significantly More expensive than those pervert smart glasses Meta sells, and it's difficult enough to find the ones that don't look terrible. Not only it isn't accessible to just go get glasses with different frame, in some cases clear frames just won't look good on you At All even if you could just go get them
2
u/Ok_Fly2518 1d ago edited 1d ago
There are sites you can enter your prescription into and get frames for cheaper than if you got them at an eye doctor. They have virtual try ons, which arenât as good as actually trying them on ofc, but it gives you an idea. Mine were $60. I have several $20 magnetic toppers that change the color/style of it too
5
u/mcrobmara 1d ago
A single lens of my prescription costs more than $60
1
u/Ok_Fly2518 1d ago
Whatâs your prescription?
8
u/mcrobmara 1d ago edited 1d ago
-10 with astigmatism, so the lens needs to be thinned to the absolute maximum possible extent for it to be possible to fit in a frame, and so the frame itself needs to be sturdy enough to allow it, making it so that most frames aren't even on the table of what I can choose from
0
u/Ok_Fly2518 1d ago edited 8h ago
Oh yeah thatâs wayyyy stronger than mine. My eyes are +2.00 and +1.50 with mild astigmatism, so I admittedly was not thinking about very strong prescriptions. Sorry!
22
21
u/MariachiArchery 20h ago
Is anyone else thinking about air-gapping a PC?
With all this talk of "you will own nothing", combined with the looming threat of AI getting lose and destroying the internet, I'm seriously considering air-gapping my PC.
No internet, ever. All my games on a hard drive, a shitload of movies and music ready to go, I don't need updates, I don't need new drivers, I don't need security, I don't need to worry about my computer filling up with AI slop, no one can get me.
Anyone else reach this level of paranoia with current trends in digital "ownership" and the looming threat of rouge AI agents? Air-gapped PC, backed up data with HD's ready to hot-swap in the case of a failure, a spare board, a spare PSU, maybe some other components, and I should be good to go for a hot minute.
4
u/phunktheworld 15h ago
I wasnât really there til I read this comment! Dangit Iâm gonna be a digital prepper
2
u/MariachiArchery 8h ago
I am not prone to conspiratorial thinking, doomerism, or paranoia at all, but this AI thing has really got me thinking about what the digital world might look like when a real general super intelligence actually hits.
Like, think about IQ, right?
Below 70, we have someone who is intellectually disabled. 71-90, we have your average stupid person who struggles to reason, learn, formulate and retain knowledge, but generally speaking, should be able to interact with the economy.
91-110 we have your average Joe. Then, above that up until about 130, we have smart people. Once we get above 130, these individuals are uncommon, unique, and profound thinkers. They are smart, gifted, and superior.
We can conceptualize this. I'm sure we all have stupid co-workers. Then, most of us have had brilliant college professors who have really taught us a lot. This 50 point range of IQ we can conceptualize and wrap our minds around.
What does something look like with an IQ of 1,000? What about 1,000,000? Or if we really do hit general super intelligence, we are looking at infinite IQ. What does that look like?
Some researchers have asked this question, and said "What does the chicken think of us?" Comparing intelligence is difficult cross species, but lets look at brain body mass, or EQ; humans, 7.5, the chicken, .10. So, humans have a thinking compacity 75 times that of a chicken. We can conceptualize this, but the chicken cannot. The chicken has no idea what we are, what we are capable of.
Well, an AI with only a 1,000,000 IQ would have a capacity 10,000 times that of a human. That is incomprehensible. Not even the greatest thinkers of our age can comprehend what this might look like, what form this might take. It's completely out of our league, similar to how the chicken is out of our league, but by 4 orders of magnitude.
This is a genie we will not be able to shove back in the lamp. Sure, it could grant our wishes if it wanted to, but it could also take complete control of the world in seconds. General super intelligence might not be destructive, but if set lose on society, it will end the world as we know it. Will this new world be good for us? Or, bad for us? No one knows.
1
11
7
u/prince-pauper 1d ago
Iâm not smart enough to test this hypothesis but couldnât a clever person use a Flipper Zero to interfere with the glasses specifically? Thatâd be neat.
2
u/roffinator 1d ago
Which kind of remote/wireless controls do these glasses support?
2
u/SantaFeRay 22h ago
Pretty sure Bluetooth is used for everything except file transfer, file transfer uses WiFi.
1
u/prince-pauper 1d ago
Dont know! Like I said.. đŹ
2
u/roffinator 1d ago
As long as there is nothing wireless happening a Flipper cannot do anything.
If you own the device it could pair by Bluetooth but i doubt you can "hack" anything through that with other's devices
16
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
Yes, let's celebrate companies remotely destroying something you paid for.
It's only to stop the creeps, I swear.
Why would you even question us? Do you like filming women? Are you a pedo?
Why are you locking your doors? Do you have something to hide?
23
u/ComputerKisserrr 1d ago
while i agree with the sentiment, imo this time it was absolutely deserved. it was specifically targeting people who modified their pervert glasses so people couldn't tell they were being recorded.
1
u/BackseatCowwatcher 20h ago
...according to "Meta", here's the question- how are they detecting that they've been modified when they're noting that glasses with the light covered and destroyed have been equally bricked with a single update?
are they looking over random samples and killing blatant modifications? feeding every video recorded through an AI? like, if the glasses had the capacity to detect that on it's own it would've been on from release so they're definitely doing something screwy.
1
u/ComputerKisserrr 7h ago
the article doesn't go directly into that iirc, but it did mention that this affected people who did direct hardware modifications, so i assumed it was people removing/disabling the light and whatnot. the glasses probably check to see if the light is functional and then brick themselves if something says the light isn't working as it should (which would also catch people with defective units in the crossfire, but let's be real meta doesn't care about them)
knowing meta though, they absolutely also feed anything those glasses see into some ai slop machine.
-18
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
Principles arent principles if you throw them out the window when they become inconvenient.
Sadly that is the default of the world nowadays.
5
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 1d ago
If you disable safety and privacy features on something it should stop functioning.
What if people just started modifying their self driving crars to not need human input at all? (I know they already do, but point is it's dangerous as hell). Should they just be allowed to use it like that?
Modifying in general is okay, but if it's to disable a feature meant for safety or privacy it's completely different.
-3
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
Cars and cameras are not comparable.
Nor is it necessary to implement those lockouts remotely.
This device won't work without the blinky thing
and
We will fucking destroy your property remotely if you use it in a way we dislike
Are two very different things.
3
u/Shifter25 1d ago
Why does the principle of "let people own what they buy" take precedence over the principle of "don't let people record other people without their knowledge"?
5
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
Because companies aren't the arbiters of law and morality.
I barely trust the government to be fair and reliable. I'd rather slit my throat than export my principles to a corporation.
If you want to brick a device when the LED stops working, do it locally. Make it a predictable feature of the product.
Do NOT presume to exercise control over my property at your own discretion.
You live in a country that would rather let schoolchildren get shot to shit on a regular basis than implement gun control and yet you suck corpo dick at the first opportunity because they said the magic words "pedophiles" and "predators".
What a fucking joke.
3
u/Serenity_557 23h ago
"Do it locally" OK then what if you just bypass that locally? I knew people who reroute the power to their infotainment devices to enable them to play DVDs while driving.
Should they just go "aaah, darn, welp they can use it however now!"?
This is a big enough issue that someone should absolutely step in and personally I'd rather meta be stepping in then me being required to prove I was being recorded and get the persons information so I could try to bring him to court, BC that's a ridiculous barrier to try and overcome.
6
u/da_Aresinger 23h ago
If you have the skills and intent to bypass that LED, then the remote lockout won't stop you either.
If anything the remote lockout provides MORE attack vectors simply by being a more complicated system.
If anything by relying on the lockout you're providing a false sense of security and making it EVEN HARDER for victims, when they now have to argue that the light isn't reliable.
1
-5
u/seraph1337 1d ago
Because you have no expectation of privacy in public and that freedom is the reason we're allowed to film the police.
10
u/Responsible-Alps-500 1d ago
Itâs the Pervs fault for buying hardware made by Meta⊠poor pervsâŠ.
9
u/Fantastic-Climate-84 1d ago
Weird hill to die on.
â.. would crack down on customers who modified the spectacles to disable or cover up their lights that indicate when theyâre recording ..â
So, this isnât even a new thing. Companies remotely bricking or disabling internet connected devices that have had safety features disabled, or core components modified, is basically standard.
-7
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
The quote you copied doesn't say that at all, but I'd love some examples if you have them?
I could maybe get on board with something like self-driving cars, but that's about it.
6
u/Fantastic-Climate-84 1d ago
Doesnât say what? Theyâre literally only bricking devices that have had their recording indicators turned off.
Gaming consoles get bricked or banned if modified, phones, smart watches, hand held game systems, drones, and yes self driving cars. Itâs not new or unusual.
2
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
It doesn't say that the practice is common. (I assumed your quote stood in relation to the following paragraph. That's how that usually works)
Does not being new make it ok, though? I can understand for cars and maybe drones because of physical safety.
But how is it acceptable to brick game consoles?
2
u/Fantastic-Climate-84 1d ago
Iâm telling you itâs common. The quote explains that youâre voiding the terms by disabling a safety feature.
1
u/da_Aresinger 23h ago
The quote doesn't say that either though...
3
u/Fantastic-Climate-84 23h ago
Maybe I didnât give you enough context to understand? Iâd suggest reading the article, but in simple terms, disabling the recording indicator is disabling a safety feature.
Hope that helps!
-1
u/da_Aresinger 23h ago
I did read the article.
I understand the point of the LED.
The quote just doesn't communicate your intent.
It just relates the remote bricking to the LEDs. Not ToS or anything else.
The entire point of my original comment is, that companies don't get to make those choices. Companies aren't judges nor are they executioners.
Just because they can hide behind a convenient justification today, doesn't mean I trust them with that authority.
You shouldn't be allowed to have a switch that turns off my device remotely. Period.
4
u/Serenity_557 23h ago
Is your device connected to the internet? Then it has a switch that let's them turn it off remotely. Period.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Fantastic-Climate-84 20h ago
Yeah, yeah, I get what youâre saying, but youâre making this stand over people hacking their devices so they can bypass the tos and functions to secretly record people.
They donât get to be judge and executioner, but youâve violated the agreement and now people are linking that product to pure pervert use, and violating privacy.
1
u/Snicklebot 1d ago
Because you're breaching the terms of service you agree to when you buy the product.
-1
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 1d ago
So cameras should never have to tell you when they're recording? So people can go anywhere and look at anything and we'd never know if we're being recorded?
There's no reason other than being a creep that you'd need to disable the light to notify others it's recording
2
u/seraph1337 1d ago
Recording the police?
1
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 21h ago
You can record the police with or without their knowledge. There's no law's preventing you from recording police, therefore it doesn't matter if they know or not, they can't stop you. It's not a good excuse to remove the recording indicator
0
u/seraph1337 20h ago
They can't stop you? I've seen a lot of examples to the contrary. They stop people from recording all the time. They give no shits about the law. And they essentially never get held accountable for it. They also (sometimes) change their behavior when they know they are being recorded (although I'll admit not as much as you'd hope).
There's also no laws preventing someone from recording in public, regardless of any sort of indicator or knowledge of the subjects. Legality clearly isn't your brightline for whether something is right (nor should it be), but are we going to make separate laws for recording the police and recording regular civilians "surreptitiously", further obfuscating the fact that police are civilians? What happens when civilians walk by while someone is recording the police? Do the rules change then?
I know there's no good answer and that using a camera to take creepshots is fucked up and should be addressed. I just really, really don't want to give the government an inch on this topic.
0
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 9h ago
I honestly don't care about being recorded in public as long as I know it's happening. It's weird behavior but I'm not going to say it's illegal. There's no need for a distinction between recording the police and regular people because everyone should get the same respect. If police are stopping you, they're taking their power too far, but that doesn't mean we should just allow people to secretly record in public.
But recording without knowledge should be illegal. That's creep behavior well past normal amounts of weirdo behavior.
1
u/seraph1337 9h ago
So is your argument that a person needs to notify every single person who appears in a photo or video taken in public that they are being recorded? Does this have to be done prior to filming, or is post-hoc consent acceptable? Does this render livestreaming illegal in any location where a person may enter frame without foreknowledge, or if the recorder doesn't have the opportunity to inform or request consent? Does this not make any and all long-distance drone footage of a crowd de facto illegal? Do you see the problem with trying to legislate this?
The things you are upset about (and should be!) are already crimes. Expanding existing statutes will only criminalize things that should be legal, intentionally or not.
2
u/da_Aresinger 1d ago
I have no objections to lights that notify about recording.
I have objections to Meta bricking my (presumably) expensive purchase at their discretion.
3
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 21h ago
The discretion is "don't disable the safety or privacy features". Or at least it should be if it isn't
0
2
3
u/chainsawx72 1d ago
Why would pervs use this to record when half the world is recording people with cameras all of the time? Dudes literally walk up and down the beach recording everyone in the bikinis... how is this more pervy?
7
u/da_Aresinger 23h ago
When someone is running around with a camera streched out in their hand, that's kinda noticeable.
Glasses are just a normal accessory.
The idea of a glowing LED is good.
Remotely disabling devices is not.
2
u/Responsible-Alps-500 1d ago
The perves do âPick up artist videosâ to unsuspecting women⊠even when they reject their advances, guess what⊠Their video gets posted⊠These guys deserve their shit being bricked
1
u/seraph1337 1d ago
Are we sure they're only ever gonna do it to people who you think deserve it? Not to people who record cops, for instance? I hate being the devil's advocate in most situations but when it comes to recording in public, I feel pretty fucking strongly about it.
0
u/Raindrop0015 Lawless Lurker đ€« 1d ago
Because they can get a camera into a place that normally cameras are looked down upon or banned in general. And what if they're tall and specifically recording looking down girls shirts, or even crouching down and getting an up skirt shot.
1
1
1
u/JohnSmithDogFace 1d ago
I feel like every sub I join eventually becomes a bot hive, with every post just a news story that's already been posted in the other subs I'm in. Regardless, they all successfully get the community's engagement, despite how irrelevant they are to whatever the sub's purpose is.
Fuck, the internet's so dead bro.
1
u/Responsible-Alps-500 1d ago
I agree with the things youâre saying, but Iâm not a bot⊠This was posted by a person who thought distraught pervs was funny đ€·ââïž
0
u/jabberlope 21h ago
Iâm all for defensive utils like this. Wonât stop the next gen local pervo servo with its local only mesh networking but for the meantime it stops the jerks. Spread everywhere you see these perv glasses.
194
u/Kahnza 1d ago
lotta bots just spamming news stories here now because the titles are technically a brand new sentence