9 ms·
I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private conten
by zmmmmm 8mo ago
I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes.
But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shine a bright light whenever recording. Are people really going into bathrooms, having sex, sharing rooms with people undressed while this light is on? Or is this deliberate tampering, malfunctioning, or Meta capturing footage without activating the light (hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally).
- losvedir 8mo agoAgreed. I'm confused trying to map what the article is saying to what's happening at a technical level. For example, obviously it's not doing on-device inference, so it's unsurprising that it won't work without a network connection, but this is totally distinct from your recordings ending up getting labeled. It talks about being able to opt into that, which is one thing. But I guess I don't understand if you don't opt in, if the data still gets sent out for labeling. I feel like this article is either a bombshell, or totally confused.
- noduerme 8mo ago>> but this is totally distinct from your recordings ending up getting labeled The distinction here occurs wherever the data is processed, and it sounds as if the difference between using your video for labeling versus privately processing it through an AI is deliberately confusing and obscured to the user by the way the terms of service are written. Once the video is uploaded, which is necessary for the basic function, it's unclear how or whether it can be separated from other streams that do go through labeling. This confusion also seems to be an intentional dark pattern.
- cmiles74 8mo agoMy reading was that as soon as you enable the "AI" functionality you are opted into having your recordings labeled. "But for the AI assistant to function, voice, text, image and sometimes video must be processed and may be shared onwards. This data processing is done automatically and cannot be turned off."
- losvedir 8mo agoRight, that's the section I was confused by because it was in the context of an experiment trying to use the AI stuff without an Internet connection, which obviously won't work. The article is using the "shared onwards" terminology to refer to at least inference. But the inference part is uninteresting to me, and the data labeling is. The article doesn't really separate those out.
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoI would figure if there is AI labeling that some things will confuse the system and will be sent to a human. And some things will randomly be sent to a human for error checking. Same thing with Alexa, I figure there's always a low probability chance that anything I say to her will end up reaching a human. She's not always listening as some people fear (the data use would have been detected long ago if she were), but humans occasionally trigger her accidentally--and such errant triggers will be more likely to be sent to a human because they are not going to make sense.
- alterom 8mo ago>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...
- drawnwren 8mo agoAs much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.
- jcgrillo 8mo agoor more recently the times he lied to Congress, all the layoffs, the "metaverse", etc
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- zephyreon 8mo agoLearning to choose your words more wisely as you age does not necessarily indicate your underlying value system has evolved.
- hattmall 8mo ago>they have to reach 20 years into the past. Well, they don't, but this is a particularly damning statement and it's age is more of a feature than a flaw because it shows a long history of anti-social disdain for humanity.
- duskdozer 8mo agoThere's a big difference between "someone said something stupid as a kid"... "but now has changed and is a totally different person" and "is doing the same things but now knows how not to say the quiet part out loud"
- Sabinus 8mo agoIf you're not paying a subscription for Meta to AI process your audio and video then they're going to get value out of it some way. It's just like any other 'free' digital service
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- hananova 8mo agoBut there is total transparency though? Meta is using all your data, always. And the harder they say they’re not, the sneakier they’re doing it.
- jcgrillo 8mo agoThis is historically what we've had consumer protection regulations for. When they put lead, radium, asbestos, arsenic, or other poisons in consumer products the regulators step in and put a stop to it. It should be pretty clear at this point these consumer tech companies are no different--they're just producing poison. And it's not like there weren't signs, it's been like this for damn near a quarter century.
- edgyquant 8mo agoOur country is too divided to focus on things like this.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- _ink_ 8mo agoI do believe people do all of that with the light on. And then there are also people who tamper with the device to deactivate the light. You can find guides for that online.
- qnleigh 8mo agoAlso some people probably tape over the light for whatever reason.
- Sebguer 8mo agomy understanding is that the light is resistant to simply taping over it, and recording can't happen in this case. you have to intentionally modify the glasses to be able to surreptitiously record.
- NekkoDroid 8mo ago> my understanding is that the light is resistant to simply taping over it, and recording can't happen in this case. I remember when the glasses came out and this was tested: if you tape it over before starting the recording it refuses, but if you tape it after starting it will happily continue to record. I don't know if they changed it, but that is how it use to be.
- weli 8mo agoStill works like that. The glasses have in the same hole a led light and a small light sensor (similar to the ones used in monitors to set up auto-brightness). On start recording the glasses check if the light sensor is above a certain threshold, if it is then it starts recording and turns on the led light. So, if you start recording and then cover the hole, it keeps recording because the check only happens on start. Even if they wanted to fix this by making the light sensor do a constant check it wouldn't work as the privacy led light indicator is triggering the same sensor, which is a terrible design choice. And to disable the light is as easy as using a small drill bit and breaking either the light sensor module or the led light. They can detect if it's been tampered with and they put a giant notice saying the privacy light is not working but they still let you record anyways lol.
- techpression 8mo agoIf anyone were to record even when the light is not shining, it would be Meta. This would not surprise me at all, they have everything to win and nothing to lose, no country would fine them anything remotely relevant compared to the value of the data they'd be getting.
- ccppurcell 8mo agoI mean laptop webcams also shine a light when they're recording but obviously you don't just trust the light to come on right?
- mentalgear 8mo agoThe Zuck being the Zuck, I wouldn't put it past him collecting data even if the cosmetic light is not on.
- ourmandave 8mo ago[flagged]
- InsideOutSanta 8mo agoI'm going to guess that people are intentionally recording themselves having sex, assuming that they are creating a local recording that is not sent to Meta. Does the light mean "camera is recording" or "cloud services are involved"?
- phyrex 8mo agoCamera is recording/taking a picture
- shevy-java 8mo agoI am very much confused. People recorded sex way before the meta-spy-glasses. I mean, not as if I were to visit such sites, right ... but video recordings can be done in numerous ways. Also on small devices. I mean the smartphones are fairly small.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- antiframe 8mo agoRight, but most people didn't send their sex tapes to a multinational corporation.
- cmiles74 8mo agoThe article isn't clear on this point, I believe because Meta isn't clear on this themselves. Other bits of this piece highlight third parties reviewing the responses of the AI assistant; it's possible that people are recording and some sound they make triggers the AI assistant which, in turn, leads to the video being reviewed. OTOH, Meta could just be desperate for training content and they're just slurping up all recordings by people who've opted into the AI function. It would be great for them to clarify how this works.
- yard2010 8mo agoFollow up question - can we jailbreak this device and install an open source alternative that makes meta irrelevant?
- GJim 8mo ago> There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening This is why WE have the GDPR. To outlaw and prevent exploitation such as this.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- GJim 8mo agoPresumably the 'drive-by' downvotes are coming from the ad-tech industry who would prefer the population to simply bend over and grab ankles with both hands the moment they request our personal data?
- Findecanor 8mo agoI find the root issue to be that what the glasses see is described as "content" in the first place.
- lazide 8mo agoPeople absolutely will (and are) modding them to hide that light. But even if they weren’t, a lot of people won’t notice. And regardless of any privacy policy or the like, you still have to worry about Room 641A scenarios [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A]. Can you imaging a Stasi that has a large portion of the population also wearing pervasive surveillance tech? Amazing!
- cmiles74 8mo agoThis was one of the first hits on Kagi. 404 has a similar article (I think) but it's behind a paywall. "The demand for this ‘Ray-Ban hack’ has been steadily increasing, with the hobbyist’s waiting list growing longer by the day. This demonstrates a clear desire among Ray-Ban owners to exercise more control over their privacy and mitigate concerns about unknowingly recording others." https://bytetrending.com/2025/10/28/ray-ban-hack-disabling-the-recording-light-2/ https://bytetrending.com/2025/10/28/ray-ban-hack-disabling-t...
- pyrale 8mo agoIt is also completely unacceptable to capture the public space without oversight and consent from third parties. If glass users are fine with that, why wouldn’t they accept it for themselves?
- krunck 8mo agoIt is absolutely within possibility that all "camera is on" lights are software controlled just like the camera and independently of the camera. They are meant to tell the user that they are using the camera. They are not meant to tell anyone that the owner of the devices back-end is using the camera.
- vizzah 8mo agothey are not. their design is done well to make it hard to circumvent the light.
- NickC25 8mo ago>(hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally) Hard to believe they would? This is Mark Zuckerberg we are talking about. It's hard to believe they wouldn't.
- cindyllm 8mo ago[dead]
- benrapscallion 8mo agoIt is Facebook. I expected exactly this from smart glasses made by them. You can’t change the DNA of a company.
- lofaszvanitt 8mo agoStrange Days - the movie - scenario.
- jsbisviewtiful 8mo ago> (hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally) Are you referring to the same company that runs Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram? Meta has, for well over a decade, been caught multiple times -as recently as 2 years ago caught for the third time I know of- burrowing into areas of phones that their apps weren't directly given access to. Android phones have been highly susceptible to this kind of snooping. https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/meta-halts-phone-and-browser-tracking-tools-after-researchers-expose-user-tracking https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/meta-halts-phone-and-...
- lelandfe 8mo agoOther 2 are Onavo Protect & Project Atlas
- a_ba 8mo agoThe light is a mere technicality. Zuck himself was smart enough to cover his laptop cam/camera with tape 10 years ago[0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36596070 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36596070