5 ms·

It's me. I want to be protected from hidden cameras from other peoples glasses.

vigilanti 11mo ago
Project Codename: Allen Funt Project Description: Glasses that have a speaker and appropriately say “You’re on Candid Camera!” when it detects others being recorded.
shmel 11mo ago
... by using your own glasses with a hidden camera? Sounds like a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.
- skripp 11mo ago
  ”I would feel pretty silly if my solution uses its own camera. So I'll be avoiding that.” From the GitHub link.
  - paul7986 11mo ago
    The solution to this (smart glass privacy debate) is Apple releasing smart glasses that automatically anonymize anyone in your photos/videos who isn’t a friend or family member with you at the time (it could be done automatically as Apple knows your friends/family members' faces already). All else appear as random faces, completely removed, a blurred out crowd to whatever privacy config options they offer and you choose. Not a creep here and use my Meta glasses to record my normal non-creepy life and life experiences. They are really convenient and useful (just suck cause they break easily either from software updates to water splashes)!
    - Lucasoato 11mo ago
      This isn't a solution, they would still have the data. Companies can't be trusted, they'll do what is more convenient for them, we need to remove the problem at the root by not allowing people to take pictures/videos if not permitted.
      - paul7986 11mo ago
        As noted Apple already knows your friends' and familys' faces... why are people not up in arms about this fact already? It's been close to a decade or more they have done this. Also the debate is around a lot of people not wanting to be recorded without permission in public via glasses (yet they are complacent about all the video cameras recording us now.. i dont get it) so with Apple marketing smart glasses with a solution to this debate and millions buying their smart privacy glasses the market forces all others to follow suit (offer smart privacy glass features too).
      - berkes 11mo ago
        Indeed, this solution is in some way even worse. It teaches people to trust "Currently NonEvil Company™" to do the good thing. First, and obvious problem is that this "trains" us to rely on brands to protect us. And to keep doing this. Companies may have different interests than their consumers. Ideally and sometimes these interests are aligned. But nothing guarantees this remains so. Companies will "Become evil", if only because they are sometimes legally forced to by governments or shareholders. Second, is that this teaches people not to be responsible but to leave that to companies or technology. Which works if e.g. Apple and Meta are the only providers. But falls apart the moment Focebook glasses, Apelle Gear or Rang Doorbell is available on temu. And becomes worse when HP, Dell, Samsung, IBM and other legitimate producers start competing in the space. We've now been trained that what the first companies did was "The Good Thing", but lack the social structure, laws, or even common sense to manage a world in which this self-constraint of the companies no longer applies.
        paul7986 11mo ago
        Apple is the privacy company already .. that's their brand and a brand that the public trusts. Overall why are we not up in arms about all the video cameras that record in all cities everyday which companies like Clearview and others have our public images in their databases yet we are up in arms about smart glasses? THis is a solution to this public debate and Apple hasnt released their glasses yet and they are a privacy company and heavily market themselves as such. As the poster notes smart glasses adoption is rising and will only continue to do so... so this debate in time will continue to fade into the background as there is no same amount of debate about all the cameras in cities that are already recording us. With that in mind the smart glass privacy debate is an odd one to me where corporations are already recording us in these same public places.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Yeah but that approach using "sweeps" doesn't seem to be working. It's possible it actually requires a camera to do it reliably well.
    - alwa 11mo ago
      I’ve heard of approaches using pulsed IR along with a Mk.1 Human Eyeball to detect the incident reflections, sometimes with the assistance of a filter. Glasses seem like a good form factor for that kind of thing. Of course, the detecting person’s anti-camera glasses may well light up on the surveiller’s recording, too…
- rakamotog 11mo ago
  Going by data, most likely a path with prior success.
LocalH 11mo ago
I want to be able to use glasses with a camera, in situations which warrant it, to prevent people from gaslighting me or others about our conversations. Something like you see in dashcams, where it's always recording to a circular buffer of a few seconds to a minute, and then one can then enable "full" recording which dumps the buffer to storage and then starts saving everything until disabled. I also live in a US state that only requires one-party consent to record a conversation, meaning it is fully legal in my state to record any conversation I am a participant in, regardless of the consent of the other participants. How should this be reconciled?
- moritzwarhier 11mo ago
  Sounds dystopian to me, I'd want to reconcile it by not allowing "one-party consent" for people to record me. Not sure if the state laws you're referencing are in reality limited to phone calls, but I strongly dislike unregulated public camera use. Your vision (no pun intended) is the story of the Black Mirror episode "The entire history of you", IMO from the show's golden age. edit; I know that surveillance cameras pass this line already, but here they have to be announced with signs. And even when they aren't, to me state or police surveillance is different from potentially everyone stealthily recording me in private or public spaces.
  - godelski 11mo ago
    > Sounds dystopian to me 1984? It's not the only surveillance state story. Everyone loves when you can dig up something from decades ago that is no longer representative. Cameras everywhere just keeps everyone honest, right? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? What's acceptable now will always be acceptable in the future, right? My mind never changes, whose does?
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - LocalH 11mo ago
      The point of this idea is that it would be under control of the individual wearing the glasses. I would most definitely not want it to be syncing to the cloud or some stupid shit like that. The buffer, and the storage, would need to be entirely contained within the glasses (or other device, if it turns out audio is a legally safer way to implement something like this). As I mentioned in a sibling comment, I'm not against a visual notification of such recording once the "start saving to storage" button has been pressed. At the same time, I realize that the 60 seconds or so leading up to pressing that button is also often vital (otherwise dashcams wouldn't use a rolling buffer). And in such a situation where audio (or video, in applicable jurisdictions) is being recorded only in volatile memory and overwritten when the buffer is exhausted, I don't think a recording notification should be necessary unless the user has actively engaged non-volatile recording. In that sense, it's similar to the difference between streaming and downloading media. Both are technically the same, but the intention of "streaming" is to download the media and decode it without storing it in a non-volatile fashion.

Project Codename: Allen Funt Project Description: Glasses that have a speaker and appropriately say “You’re on Candid Camera!” when it detects others being recorded.

shmel 11mo ago

... by using your own glasses with a hidden camera? Sounds like a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

skripp 11mo ago
”I would feel pretty silly if my solution uses its own camera. So I'll be avoiding that.” From the GitHub link.
- paul7986 11mo ago
  The solution to this (smart glass privacy debate) is Apple releasing smart glasses that automatically anonymize anyone in your photos/videos who isn’t a friend or family member with you at the time (it could be done automatically as Apple knows your friends/family members' faces already). All else appear as random faces, completely removed, a blurred out crowd to whatever privacy config options they offer and you choose. Not a creep here and use my Meta glasses to record my normal non-creepy life and life experiences. They are really convenient and useful (just suck cause they break easily either from software updates to water splashes)!
  - Lucasoato 11mo ago
    This isn't a solution, they would still have the data. Companies can't be trusted, they'll do what is more convenient for them, we need to remove the problem at the root by not allowing people to take pictures/videos if not permitted.
    - paul7986 11mo ago
      As noted Apple already knows your friends' and familys' faces... why are people not up in arms about this fact already? It's been close to a decade or more they have done this. Also the debate is around a lot of people not wanting to be recorded without permission in public via glasses (yet they are complacent about all the video cameras recording us now.. i dont get it) so with Apple marketing smart glasses with a solution to this debate and millions buying their smart privacy glasses the market forces all others to follow suit (offer smart privacy glass features too).
    - berkes 11mo ago
      Indeed, this solution is in some way even worse. It teaches people to trust "Currently NonEvil Company™" to do the good thing. First, and obvious problem is that this "trains" us to rely on brands to protect us. And to keep doing this. Companies may have different interests than their consumers. Ideally and sometimes these interests are aligned. But nothing guarantees this remains so. Companies will "Become evil", if only because they are sometimes legally forced to by governments or shareholders. Second, is that this teaches people not to be responsible but to leave that to companies or technology. Which works if e.g. Apple and Meta are the only providers. But falls apart the moment Focebook glasses, Apelle Gear or Rang Doorbell is available on temu. And becomes worse when HP, Dell, Samsung, IBM and other legitimate producers start competing in the space. We've now been trained that what the first companies did was "The Good Thing", but lack the social structure, laws, or even common sense to manage a world in which this self-constraint of the companies no longer applies.
      - paul7986 11mo ago
        Apple is the privacy company already .. that's their brand and a brand that the public trusts. Overall why are we not up in arms about all the video cameras that record in all cities everyday which companies like Clearview and others have our public images in their databases yet we are up in arms about smart glasses? THis is a solution to this public debate and Apple hasnt released their glasses yet and they are a privacy company and heavily market themselves as such. As the poster notes smart glasses adoption is rising and will only continue to do so... so this debate in time will continue to fade into the background as there is no same amount of debate about all the cameras in cities that are already recording us. With that in mind the smart glass privacy debate is an odd one to me where corporations are already recording us in these same public places.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Yeah but that approach using "sweeps" doesn't seem to be working. It's possible it actually requires a camera to do it reliably well.
  - alwa 11mo ago
    I’ve heard of approaches using pulsed IR along with a Mk.1 Human Eyeball to detect the incident reflections, sometimes with the assistance of a filter. Glasses seem like a good form factor for that kind of thing. Of course, the detecting person’s anti-camera glasses may well light up on the surveiller’s recording, too…
rakamotog 11mo ago
Going by data, most likely a path with prior success.

LocalH 11mo ago

I want to be able to use glasses with a camera, in situations which warrant it, to prevent people from gaslighting me or others about our conversations. Something like you see in dashcams, where it's always recording to a circular buffer of a few seconds to a minute, and then one can then enable "full" recording which dumps the buffer to storage and then starts saving everything until disabled. I also live in a US state that only requires one-party consent to record a conversation, meaning it is fully legal in my state to record any conversation I am a participant in, regardless of the consent of the other participants. How should this be reconciled?

moritzwarhier 11mo ago
Sounds dystopian to me, I'd want to reconcile it by not allowing "one-party consent" for people to record me. Not sure if the state laws you're referencing are in reality limited to phone calls, but I strongly dislike unregulated public camera use. Your vision (no pun intended) is the story of the Black Mirror episode "The entire history of you", IMO from the show's golden age. edit; I know that surveillance cameras pass this line already, but here they have to be announced with signs. And even when they aren't, to me state or police surveillance is different from potentially everyone stealthily recording me in private or public spaces.
- godelski 11mo ago
  > Sounds dystopian to me 1984? It's not the only surveillance state story. Everyone loves when you can dig up something from decades ago that is no longer representative. Cameras everywhere just keeps everyone honest, right? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right? What's acceptable now will always be acceptable in the future, right? My mind never changes, whose does?
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - LocalH 11mo ago
    The point of this idea is that it would be under control of the individual wearing the glasses. I would most definitely not want it to be syncing to the cloud or some stupid shit like that. The buffer, and the storage, would need to be entirely contained within the glasses (or other device, if it turns out audio is a legally safer way to implement something like this). As I mentioned in a sibling comment, I'm not against a visual notification of such recording once the "start saving to storage" button has been pressed. At the same time, I realize that the 60 seconds or so leading up to pressing that button is also often vital (otherwise dashcams wouldn't use a rolling buffer). And in such a situation where audio (or video, in applicable jurisdictions) is being recorded only in volatile memory and overwritten when the buffer is exhausted, I don't think a recording notification should be necessary unless the user has actively engaged non-volatile recording. In that sense, it's similar to the difference between streaming and downloading media. Both are technically the same, but the intention of "streaming" is to download the media and decode it without storing it in a non-volatile fashion.