5 ms·

DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

75 points by Bender 3mo ago

throwuxiytayq 3mo ago
A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever; Zuckerberg truly has the remarkable ability to turn to shit anything he touches.
- bigfatkitten 3mo ago
  It absolutely would not have received a positive reception at an event like DEF CON. They’ve always had a strict photo policy.
- secretsatan 3mo ago
  I don’t think so, google glass set the precedent
- dabinat 3mo ago
  Google Glass was loathed too. Unfortunately Zuckerberg learned the wrong lesson from its failure - that the issue was that people could recognize the glasses and know they were being recorded and not the actual recording itself.
  - like_any_other 3mo ago
    If only people reacted to surveillance cameras the same way.
    - dnemmers 3mo ago
      I'm guessing if 'surveillance camera' meant people they don't know, obviously recording their every motion from close by...they may have a different response. It almost seems like personal Paparazzi.
- georgemcbay 3mo ago
  Google Glass came out in 2013 and got a similar reception. Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold bulky camera gear, or at least a phone-sized device to do it) Of course you have the legal right to film people in public spaces in many jurisdictions, but you're likely to be socially ostracized for it (and IMO rightfully so).
  - bamboozled 3mo ago
    The meta glasses look fucking stupid too. Like a pair of ray bans with water retention issues.
    - georgemcbay 3mo ago
      Yeah, I agree. But they look less stupid than Google Glass did and even if they didn't look stupid, people would still consider them "pervert glasses". In fact, I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. The less immediately obvious they are, the more you seem like a creepy pervert for using them when the core problem is people don't want you filming them without their knowledge or consent.
      - JohnFen 3mo ago
        > I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. My fear is that these spy glasses will actually become indistinguishable from corrective glasses. I don't look forward to a future where everyone wearing any sort of glasses will be immediately suspect.
        Bender 3mo ago
        And not having a distinguishable Bluetooth device ID to detect when one is near. [1] not tested as I do not know anyone with pervert glasses [1] - https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar
- JohnFen 3mo ago
  > A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever Not at DEF CON, no.
- sublinear 3mo ago
  I am fairly certain the goal of putting cameras on glasses is to poison the well for the rest of wearable computing while also testing the limits of user acceptance. They don't care if it succeeds. They just don't want to lose.
  - wolvoleo 3mo ago
    Exactly! I'm noticing this already as an Xreal user. They're great for travelling, you have an amazingly huge screen and together with Samsung DeX and a foldable keyboard you basically have a whole Desktop pc with you. A year ago I used them happily but now after all of the bad press meta has caused I get more suspicion. I show people that they don't feature cameras but just displays and it's ok. But they don't see the difference from the outset which makes total sense, not many people know xreal or other bird bath glasses. But the newer ones use cameras for 6DoF tracking too so they're even more likely to be viewed as perv glasses. I hope they keep making ones without, I never use the tracking anyway.
- m463 3mo ago
  I think AR glasses are loathed. But the camera takes this to extreme anti-social levels.
clickety_clack 3mo ago
It’s so weird being in a conversation with someone who is video recording the whole thing.
- alwa 3mo ago
  It's not a conversation at that point, it's a performance. I walk away.
- 4d4m 3mo ago
  It's a great display of the character of the person. You can learn a lot about their disregard for others. Its been my experience that there's a huge concentration among narcissit midwits with insecurity issues that enjoy these products. Watching their eyes change focus and the unnatural pauses they make is also personally hilarious to me...its like talking to someone that's reading through an article or typing at the same time as talking to you. Gross.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
BoxwoodSeed 3mo ago
It's so weird to me how people don't like these kind of glasses. They are basically a dash cam for your entire life. Seems like a pretty valuable thing to have. The only thing I object to is the facebook association.
- foobarchu 3mo ago
  It's weird to me that you find that weird. People in general don't like worrying that every little conversation is being recorded.
  - perching_aix 3mo ago
    Wouldn't that change if "everyone" did it? That "hilarious" and embarrassing misspeak or fall becomes a lot less so when it's a dime a dozen. It's weird because it is (right now), not because it's some fundamentally weird thing ordained that way forever during the big bang or whatever. Like, people don't like being watched when working, yet they'll sometimes outright forget they're screensharing. I know I do at least.
    - yallpendantools 3mo ago
      That's really not a good comparison. When you screenshare, even when you forget, you are the one who initiated the action. You also have the power to stop it when you realize it. Neither is the case with these glasses. If everyone did it, welcome to 1984 beyond Orwell's wildest imagination, where the Flock cameras have legs and look human. Who needs an elaborate entrapment operation when you can observe up close how someone twitches upon mention of Dear Leader's name? You are thinking of a very shallow America's Funniest Home Videos scenario without considering that there is a lot of daily-life scenarios that rely on the assumption that you are not being filmed by some rando. - In a lot of places where there is still stigma on various health issues, this kind of implicit privacy could be the difference between people seeking help or not. - We give off a lot of small but probably "confidential" signals just because we can reasonably assume we are not being recorded. From simple allusions during casual conversation to maybe a quick still frame of someone's notes. What would've been an innocuous statement could become NDA violations when recorded at the fidelity usually reserved for deposition hearings. - And speaking of innocuous, as anyone who's spent any length of time in the internet would know, it's so easy to take thirty seconds of a two-hour conversation out of context. Now you are giving everyone an eat-all-you-can buffet of your life to take out of context. Company valuations have been decided from less. All in all, these perv glasses would make society more guarded and less open, and that in an age when people already have a hard time forming relationships.
drive-by-dev 3mo ago
What will they do when attendees have comparable brain-chip capabilities?
- jononor 3mo ago
  Ban them. Assuming that people installed such brain chip voluntarily I do not see an issue.
- oliwarner 3mo ago
  If they take it to Defcon, they're fair game. Putting your melon on the line in a building full of hackers feels foolhardy.
chmars 3mo ago
There is no such ban at DEF CON. They only ban smart glasses etc. «that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not». Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED. So DEF CON has restrictions for photography, but as long as you do not hide your smart glasses' activity LED, you can just walk around and record everything as audio and video? Full text at https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html: «Smart glasses and other devices that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not, are prohibited at DEF CON, they erode trust and invade people's privacy.» (Last paragraph. The other paragraphs refer to photography.)
- ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
  I like how this policy document incorrectly uses commas.
- JohnFen 3mo ago
  > Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED. The LED is neither obvious enough nor reliable enough and by the time you see it, you've already been recorded.

75 points by Bender 3mo ago

A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever; Zuckerberg truly has the remarkable ability to turn to shit anything he touches.

bigfatkitten 3mo ago
It absolutely would not have received a positive reception at an event like DEF CON. They’ve always had a strict photo policy.
secretsatan 3mo ago
I don’t think so, google glass set the precedent
dabinat 3mo ago
Google Glass was loathed too. Unfortunately Zuckerberg learned the wrong lesson from its failure - that the issue was that people could recognize the glasses and know they were being recorded and not the actual recording itself.
- like_any_other 3mo ago
  If only people reacted to surveillance cameras the same way.
  - dnemmers 3mo ago
    I'm guessing if 'surveillance camera' meant people they don't know, obviously recording their every motion from close by...they may have a different response. It almost seems like personal Paparazzi.
georgemcbay 3mo ago
Google Glass came out in 2013 and got a similar reception. Google's device also suffered from making the user look ridiculous, like a gargoyle out of Snow Crash, but at the end of the day most people had the same core issue with it as they have with the Meta glasses which is that people don't like the idea of being filmed in public, especially when the filming is somewhat surreptitious (since you don't have to hold bulky camera gear, or at least a phone-sized device to do it) Of course you have the legal right to film people in public spaces in many jurisdictions, but you're likely to be socially ostracized for it (and IMO rightfully so).
- bamboozled 3mo ago
  The meta glasses look fucking stupid too. Like a pair of ray bans with water retention issues.
  - georgemcbay 3mo ago
    Yeah, I agree. But they look less stupid than Google Glass did and even if they didn't look stupid, people would still consider them "pervert glasses". In fact, I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. The less immediately obvious they are, the more you seem like a creepy pervert for using them when the core problem is people don't want you filming them without their knowledge or consent.
    - JohnFen 3mo ago
      > I think the more indistinguishable these types of devices get from regular glasses the more people will be upset by their existence. My fear is that these spy glasses will actually become indistinguishable from corrective glasses. I don't look forward to a future where everyone wearing any sort of glasses will be immediately suspect.
      - Bender 3mo ago
        And not having a distinguishable Bluetooth device ID to detect when one is near. [1] not tested as I do not know anyone with pervert glasses [1] - https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar https://github.com/alexh-scrt/glasses-radar
JohnFen 3mo ago
> A few years ago a device with similar capabilities would have been the coolest gadget ever Not at DEF CON, no.
sublinear 3mo ago
I am fairly certain the goal of putting cameras on glasses is to poison the well for the rest of wearable computing while also testing the limits of user acceptance. They don't care if it succeeds. They just don't want to lose.
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  Exactly! I'm noticing this already as an Xreal user. They're great for travelling, you have an amazingly huge screen and together with Samsung DeX and a foldable keyboard you basically have a whole Desktop pc with you. A year ago I used them happily but now after all of the bad press meta has caused I get more suspicion. I show people that they don't feature cameras but just displays and it's ok. But they don't see the difference from the outset which makes total sense, not many people know xreal or other bird bath glasses. But the newer ones use cameras for 6DoF tracking too so they're even more likely to be viewed as perv glasses. I hope they keep making ones without, I never use the tracking anyway.
m463 3mo ago
I think AR glasses are loathed. But the camera takes this to extreme anti-social levels.

clickety_clack 3mo ago

It’s so weird being in a conversation with someone who is video recording the whole thing.

alwa 3mo ago
It's not a conversation at that point, it's a performance. I walk away.
4d4m 3mo ago
It's a great display of the character of the person. You can learn a lot about their disregard for others. Its been my experience that there's a huge concentration among narcissit midwits with insecurity issues that enjoy these products. Watching their eyes change focus and the unnatural pauses they make is also personally hilarious to me...its like talking to someone that's reading through an article or typing at the same time as talking to you. Gross.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

BoxwoodSeed 3mo ago

It's so weird to me how people don't like these kind of glasses. They are basically a dash cam for your entire life. Seems like a pretty valuable thing to have. The only thing I object to is the facebook association.

foobarchu 3mo ago
It's weird to me that you find that weird. People in general don't like worrying that every little conversation is being recorded.
- perching_aix 3mo ago
  Wouldn't that change if "everyone" did it? That "hilarious" and embarrassing misspeak or fall becomes a lot less so when it's a dime a dozen. It's weird because it is (right now), not because it's some fundamentally weird thing ordained that way forever during the big bang or whatever. Like, people don't like being watched when working, yet they'll sometimes outright forget they're screensharing. I know I do at least.
  - yallpendantools 3mo ago
    That's really not a good comparison. When you screenshare, even when you forget, you are the one who initiated the action. You also have the power to stop it when you realize it. Neither is the case with these glasses. If everyone did it, welcome to 1984 beyond Orwell's wildest imagination, where the Flock cameras have legs and look human. Who needs an elaborate entrapment operation when you can observe up close how someone twitches upon mention of Dear Leader's name? You are thinking of a very shallow America's Funniest Home Videos scenario without considering that there is a lot of daily-life scenarios that rely on the assumption that you are not being filmed by some rando. - In a lot of places where there is still stigma on various health issues, this kind of implicit privacy could be the difference between people seeking help or not. - We give off a lot of small but probably "confidential" signals just because we can reasonably assume we are not being recorded. From simple allusions during casual conversation to maybe a quick still frame of someone's notes. What would've been an innocuous statement could become NDA violations when recorded at the fidelity usually reserved for deposition hearings. - And speaking of innocuous, as anyone who's spent any length of time in the internet would know, it's so easy to take thirty seconds of a two-hour conversation out of context. Now you are giving everyone an eat-all-you-can buffet of your life to take out of context. Company valuations have been decided from less. All in all, these perv glasses would make society more guarded and less open, and that in an age when people already have a hard time forming relationships.

drive-by-dev 3mo ago

What will they do when attendees have comparable brain-chip capabilities?

jononor 3mo ago
Ban them. Assuming that people installed such brain chip voluntarily I do not see an issue.
oliwarner 3mo ago
If they take it to Defcon, they're fair game. Putting your melon on the line in a building full of hackers feels foolhardy.

chmars 3mo ago

There is no such ban at DEF CON. They only ban smart glasses etc. «that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not». Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED. So DEF CON has restrictions for photography, but as long as you do not hide your smart glasses' activity LED, you can just walk around and record everything as audio and video? Full text at https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html https://defcon.org/html/links/dc-photo-policy.html: «Smart glasses and other devices that can record audio or video with no consistent way to understand if they're recording or not, are prohibited at DEF CON, they erode trust and invade people's privacy.» (Last paragraph. The other paragraphs refer to photography.)

ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
I like how this policy document incorrectly uses commas.
JohnFen 3mo ago
> Meta smart glasses in particular are known for their LED. The LED is neither obvious enough nor reliable enough and by the time you see it, you've already been recorded.