6 ms·
US police fear Meta smart glasses could be used to secretly record them
- jordanb 1mo agoI feel like this is a submarine ad for the glasses by Meta.
- jnwatson 1mo agoThat was my thinking. It is the first legit use case I've heard.
- idiotsecant 1mo agoif it is it's genius marketing - they aren't pervert glasses, they're tools to fight the man!!! The longer I typed in that sentence the more convinced I am youre probably right.
- nicce 1mo agoImagine a world were you see glasses being sold out just to prove that police is acting against the law.
- webdoodle 1mo agoYep, this doesn't feel organic at all. Meta must be pretty desperate if they are going to go against the blue to sell spyglasses.
- dmitrygr 1mo agoWhy? As they say: no expectation of privacy in the public space, amirite?
- frenchtoast8 1mo agoIs the inside of a jail cell a public space?
- hackyhacky 1mo agoIn at least two senses, yes: 1. It is owned by the public. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent. 2. Certainly there is no expectations of privacy in a jail cell, as the jail administrators and guards can enter at any time.
- jlarocco 1mo agoNumber one doesn't necessarily apply in the United States. A lot of our prisons (but not all) are privately run.
- m4ck_ 1mo agoAlso, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
- atrus 1mo agoThey'll be fine. As the police often say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
- mc32 1mo agoIndeed. In addition, for the most part, even police view their cameras as a positive. Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities. The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.
- infecto 1mo agoWhere do we get this anecdote that US police like wearing cameras? I have no opinion but am curious if that is true. My own anecdote is the number of times we see police cover or prevent recording when they have discussions with surrounding police or other incriminating acts. Of course biased because those surface with FOIA requests but it’s hard to believe police like it.
- mc32 1mo agoThings have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large. Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.
- infecto 1mo agoSo no citations then? We can definitely come up with idea though like you have. Again not trying to poke hard here but you shared a datapoint and I am curious if there is data that backs it up.
- dentemple 1mo agoClearly, all Big Tech needs to do is to create some version of "Flock-powered" smart glasses and, all of a sudden, U.S. police will become Meta's biggest cheerleaders here.
- moh_maya 1mo ago“Cops apprehensive about impending Orwellian state”
- ratelimitsteve 1mo agoaren't these the same people telling us that AI-powered cameras on every street corner will make everything better for everyone? What do they have to fear from people seeing what they do? Why do the police fight so hard to ensure everyone else is constantly being observed but also to ensure that they are never being observed? Ostensibly, police act in our name and to our benefit. Why are we kept in the dark as to what they do?
- SoftTalker 1mo agoThis isn't about cameras in public. It's clearly established that people can record/photograph the police in public as long as they aren't interfering with them. This is about cameras in secure facilites, such as in a prison or jail. Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.
- nisegami 1mo ago>Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in. Earlier this year various elected officials tried to perform exactly that kind of public inspection of ICE facilities and met a lot of resistance. I know that some subset of these were just publicity stunts, but despite that, the fact remains that the public needs to be aware of what detention in those facilities is like and if the DHS makes choices that result in random cameras being the only way to do that, then they should reap what they sow.
- drdexebtjl 1mo agoThere’s probably an argument, I wouldn’t say it’s a good one.
- ratelimitsteve 1mo ago>there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in you're right. there's also an awful lot of very obvious good arguments for allowing recording and public access to recording, such as the incident where a prisoner was locked in a scalding shower until he was so badly burned that his skin "fell off at the touch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Darren_Rainey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Darren_Rainey). Like so many incidents of its kind, there was absolutely no hard evidence available to prove what happened and it ended up being yet another case where someone died horrifically and officially no one was found to have done anything wrong but several million dollars did change hands. If prison guards are torturing prisoners to death and getting away with it, the argument that they don't need surveillance needs to be a whole lot better than "probably good".
- pjc50 1mo agoThe panopticon is only supposed to look out, not in.
- itsmartapuntocm 1mo agoWhy did they do something wrong?
- morkalork 1mo agoHow long until a random person wearing Raybans in one of those states that banned recording within X-feet of an officer gets shot?
- 2PqboPPmKegvanx 1mo agodon't they know? >“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
- kyralis 1mo agoThe irony of someone on Fox News arguing for compromise is thick.
- tencentshill 1mo agoThey elected Him because He willfully doesn't compromise, ever.
- samrus 1mo agoI do love the irony and schedenfruede, but this isnt about recording in public areas, its about recording the inside of prisons and ICE concentration camps. That is generally not something you can legally record and is analogous to a flock camera inside your office or house, which most people would agree is bad
- dbingham 1mo ago...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad? Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.
- idiotsecant 1mo agoYes I can imagine could be quite embarrassing for the abusers.
- Ydarbleoj 1mo agoWe should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?
- chasd00 1mo ago> What are they hiding the privacy of prisoners maybe. A prison cell is not a public place (nor the hallways either) so there is an actual expectation of privacy there.
- alistairSH 1mo agoLack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.
- exe34 1mo agoI know that mass surveillance is inevitable, which is why I would prefer the circle to 1984. If they're watching us, we might as well watch them.
- michaelhillaert 1mo agoProbably police officers will start to use them as well at some point in the future...
- cogman10 1mo agoA lot of cops already have cameras on their chest (which they can freely turn off and mute). Meta glasses buy them very little.
- jimt1234 1mo agoEvery time I've interacted with the police while wearing sunglasses (when I was younger and lived near the beach) they've instructed me to remove them. I was told they need to see my pupils to get an idea if I'm under the influence. Not saying I agree with any of this, just saying the cops already have a way to negate the creepy sunglasses.
- aaroninsf 1mo agoThe pretense that meta will not simply - prevent or more likely perform but withhold and deny existence of recordings of policing - give police total access to "private" recordings is ludicrous. Meta is literally a surveillance company which as a side hustle addicts people to feeds which destroy their mental health and social relationships and sense of self worth, in service of keepting them docile, consuming, and politically steered.
- YarickR2 1mo agoFear not; they _will_ be used to secretly record them.
- declan_roberts 1mo agoThis kind of thing just reeks as a meta marketing ploy. My eyes were opened when I started attending some marketing all-hands at my last FANG employer. They do this kind of thing all of the time.
- Havoc 1mo agoAgreed. They’d love the message to be less pervert glasses and more protect your rights
- adolph 1mo agoArticle specifically mentions the term "pervert glasses" US police and federal agents are not alone in their fear. Concern among the public and privacy experts over Meta’s smart glasses, widely dubbed “pervert glasses”, is growing. The technology enables its wearers to record people without their consent and has already been used to harass people.
- jtokoph 1mo agoThe article can be 100% written by the Guardian but with a seed planted by a “leak” from Meta.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- ck2 1mo agowait 'til they learn watches now can record them and upload in realtime via LTE smartwatches are also just one or two generations away from having cameras
- bookofjoe 1mo agoAirPods Pro will have them in the very near future
- pmdulaney 1mo agoCould be?
- naikrovek 1mo ago[dead]
- greenavocado 1mo agoThe police do not care. They already have iPhones stuck in their face the millisecond they pull someone over.
- whh 1mo agoIn a lot of videos they really really really care.
- wetpaws 1mo ago[dead]
- senshan 1mo ago[dead]
- jonathanstrange 1mo agoWho doesn't fear that...
- TheChaplain 1mo agoI am a little more concerned over creeps, stalkers, pedos and teenage bullies.
- binarysolo 1mo agoSousveillance is one of the few acceptable use cases for these meta glasses that I can support.
- josefritzishere 1mo agoThis is definitely marketing.
- jlarocco 1mo agoThe rest of us fear that and nobody gives a sh*...
- parasxos 1mo agoEveryone in this story is afraid of exactly the same thing, being recorded without consent, and each side is sure it only counts when it happens to them.
- UltraSane 1mo agoCops should always behave is such a way that they don't care if they are being recorded.
- xnx 1mo agoDashcam for your face.
- Zenul_Abidin 1mo agoSo when the government doesn't want to be tracked, suddenly it's dangerous
- subscribed 1mo agoHm. If these glasses can run custom software maybe they could even start recording automatically? :)