Who is actually “for” Meta glasses (“pervert glasses”)?

These glasses are adding to the creeping normalisation of being filmed in public at any time.

It's not just the potential sex offenders that will abuse them, it's bullies too

Whatever you're doing could potentially be uploaded to a group to belittle and mock you. As an example, a few years ago there were groups uploading photos of women eating in public and the comments on them were just awful bullying nastiness.

People are now policing what they are doing in case they are filmed. These glasses are making that surreptitious filming so much easier.

I get that they are great for those with visual impairments, but why do they need to have a recording function. The downsides of that far exceeds the upsides

Don't be stupid. Drivers who break the law and drive dangerously deserve everything they get.

I already upload to the police via my phone, glasses will mean I can be hands free when I'm carrying shopping. Pedestrians see a lot of dodgy stuff and a lot of us want to make sure it's dealt with.

Don't do this. As annoying as these behaviours are - and dangerous/antisocial - don't ruin your life by becoming some kind of filming vigilante.

I do wonder if they could be huge help for womens safety.
They could film all the pervs and idiot men who harass them and it could be sent directly to the police as evidence!

Seriously considering getting some to report drivers on their mobile phone, moving road closed signs to drive through roadworks or going through a red light.

Just to repeat - you are misquoting. I can't know if you are doing this deliberately or have just misunderstood the words.

I made no comment about the person carrying out the action. I said something that was done had a negative impact on other people.

It isn't possible for anyone to have a reasonable discussion with someone who misquotes.

You’ve clarified that you meant the action rather than the person, but I’m afraid that doesn’t really change the point. Saying someone is “pretty grim for using them” is still a judgement about their choice to use them — and therefore about the person making that choice. You can draw a semantic distinction between judging an action and judging a person, but the implication of your original comment was very clear.
What I find particularly odd is that you’re now accusing me of making a “big reactive judgement” about a stranger based on a single sentence, when your original comment was itself a judgement about a stranger based on their use of a piece of technology. I was actually responding to the unnecessary judgement in your comment, not claiming to know anything about you as a person.
And the irony of telling me that I’m being “reactive” and then adding “if posting it has made you feel better, you are welcome” isn’t lost on me. That’s a fairly patronising little parting shot for someone supposedly trying to have a reasonable discussion.
You’re perfectly entitled to have concerns about the privacy implications of Meta glasses — I do too. But there’s a difference between criticising the technology and calling someone’s use of it “pretty grim”, particularly when there are plenty of legitimate uses beyond filming people. That was my point from the beginning.

The birth control pill is widely considered to be one of the most important medical and social advancements of the 20th century. I didn’t know it’s been used for “war and perverts!”

I do think Meta glasses must be very useful for people who are blind or visually impaired.

Probably because until intense advertising of meta glasses they weren't widely advertised. Also if you're buying tech you tend to buy the most up to date tevh

“Oh they’re fine - a light comes on when they’re recording anyway so you can tell”

Cool. It makes it so much better if I can actually tell someone is being a pervert. They can then perv away. Crack on

All of which can be done with other smart glasses that dont have video recording capability. Why didn't she buy one of those instead?

Try it then. Try filming someone with your phone without them noticing. It's almost impossible. And as you pointed out. All the other features people use that are actually helpful, dont need the capability to record video. There are already smartglasses available explicitly built for this. The only reason people choose Meta Glasses is specifically because they want the capability to covertly record. Which is why they have been dubbed "paedo glasses".

I understand they're extremely useful for anyone with a vision impairment but I'd prefer if they were only available to people with a legitimate need. Preferably without the ability to record at all if it can be removed without hurting the useful functionality.

Anything normalising constant recording in public is awful imo, and it would be exceptionally easy to disguise the light. Just because its legal doesn't mean you aren't a complete arse recording people without their consent. I think the same for people with phones but at least it tends to be obvious if someone's recording with them.

Nathan Fillion (an actor, think The rookie, Castle, Firefly) was talking about them on his podcast a few weeks back.

His girlfriend is from another country (can't remember what he said, think it was Spain or Italy), and they'd been visiting her family. He said he'd found them really useful for translating when out for a meal etc, and that he'd been able to follow along with the conversation.

I can see that they have their uses, but just like with the Google glasses a few years ago, if I see anyone wearing them, I'm likely to just think "Bellend"

YANBu it’s ridiculous that it’s down to private businesses to ban these. The government should be taking action but as usual they are totally behind the curve

I didn't call any person pretty grim, my statement of 'pretty grim' is about the impact of an action.

Your post is a big reactive judgement of a stranger based on a single short sentence. But if posting it has made you feel better, you are welcome .

Isn't this a double edged sword?
If they can be used by perverts can they not also be used to catch and identify perverts and other miscreants?

It’s terrifying that you and so many others are of this mindset. It might be legal, but it’s morally reprehensible that stepping outside your front door is seen as consent to have your image broadcast to anyone in the world, for any purpose, forever, by any twat who is too useless to get a proper job and not talented enough to make a name for themselves in any other way. How is that not grim as fuck? It’s bad enough that the entire world seems to have ring doorbells so you can’t turn your kitchen light on at 3am without the neighbours opposite having a record of it, but that you can’t give a seemingly random man directions without worrying that he’s going to do something horrible with your image is just unacceptable.

No they aren’t

My friend who is partially sighted has them.
They read the menu to her
They tell her what display signs say - particularly useful at train stations or airports.
They take amazing photos.
They've enhanced her life

Close family member is blind. I’m all for them.

Like a lot of technology, these types of glasses have their benefits and their concerns. Neither law or culture has really caught up on either.

I have concerns around all the data being in the hands of US companies which brings them under different US laws, and out of control of our own.

I also have concerns it would bring hostility towards anyone wearing glasses that are remotely like the meta glasses, and that it will cause those using them for disability-related accessibility needs more anguish than it already is. I can the potential of a demand of these types of glasses without the recording function if the accessibility features can work without that.

There are also issues that there are public places that do not allow filming, and there have been issues with these glasses, with people claiming to forget - some who are likely honest, some who aren't, but the staff having to deal with it are often not getting any support.

I've received emails at work around keeping an eye out for these glasses and how we have to ensure they aren't recording with no other support for customer-facing staff. We have signs about no filming or audio recordings at all in the building, it's procedure for all phones to be off and away in certain parts, but staff have so much else to do, checking every person's glasses is not going to work, just like not all phones can be checked already - staff just keep an eye out for certain behaviours that could be a sign of people recording. That's going to be harder with these glasses.

Thankfully I've not yet had to deal with it, but I know on nearby sites there have been multiple issues including with glasses found to be recording without any perceivable light. One case I know was significant enough that police were involved, the recording reviewed, and it turned out they had been filming everywhere in the building including in the toilets and in court hearings, as well as in nearby shops (it was noted that other people's card numbers had been visible when the glasses are supposedly meant to blur that type of thing on recordings, I've no idea). This is what sparked emails across the region.

So if someone is holding there phone how do you know what theyre doing on it? I am typing right now and could quite easily have my camera open pretending to write something. I know someone who has a privacy case, cant see what theyre doing stood next to them.... are you really that gullible?

I understand the privacy concerns around Meta glasses, but calling someone “pretty grim” for using them is completely uncalled for. They have plenty of uses beyond filming. My DD’s have been able to use them for translation, directions, information about where you they are, accessibility and so on. And if you’ve travelled around Asia, you’ll know people are constantly taking photos and videos in public. Perhaps get out and see a bit more of the world before having such a narrow, stubborn view.