Anyone concerned about Meta Smart Glasses? Did you know there is an app that scans for them?

[NoCommentingFromNowOn]

I knew already but to be honest was too lazy to look into it. I came across this article today…(edited to add it’s not a Facebook link and it just takes you to an lbc interview on Google)

(link didn’t work, see next post)

and downloaded the app that he made. Here is a screenshot of it in the App Store…(wait for it to be approved obviously)….

and there seems to be more than one, so the one done by the man interviewed is the one with the yellow canary.

I’m not leaving the house this weekend though so won’t be able to see if it picks anything up.

Are you all much more on the ball than I am? Is this very old news? Anyway, I’m glad I read it today.

Actually that link doesn’t seem to work, try this one

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/meta-glasses-pervert-facebook-ai-5HjdgLX_2/

I’m a bit torn with this tbh. On the one hand I do have concerns about these being used as ‘pervert’ glasses, but a major use for them is assisting visually impaired people to be able to navigate their surroundings. It’s a shame if people felt nervous to use them for this purpose if people feel so wary of them.

Not sure what the answer is - I’ve heard they apparently light up if recording? If so controls like this that can’t be overridden could be a good option.

So if you are made aware via your phone (I haven’t used it yet so I’m not sure exactly what happens) and you look up and see a visually impaired person then you can relax I think? Someone visually impaired walking confidently isn’t as confident as someone who can see, even with no dog it should be easy to tell I think? Do the glasses narrate what they can see? Are they instead of a dog or used as well as?

You might think you can tell someone has a visual impairment, but often you can’t. There are many different forms, and someone might be able to navigate walking around, but then struggle reading text/other signs, hence the glasses being really useful. Also, you can get someone who needs a white cane to walk to the train station and can then get on the train and read a book (with no glasses) perfectly fine.

These glasses could be life changing to someone and you wouldn’t be able to tell if they were a pervert or have a visual impairment. RNIB says more than 2m people in the uk are living with sight loss, and technologies like this can really help. It’s such a shame that their use for more nefarious purposes might hinder this.

Also there are about 360,000 people in the uk who are legally registered as blind or partially sighted in the uk and only 4,800 working guide dogs so that doesn’t help much with identifying either.

Ohh. So what’s the solution then? I don’t want to be filmed when I’m somewhere minding my own business.

I guess as long as I know someone is wearing them I can move away?

Someone with a visual impairment using it legitimately is less likely to have disabled the feature that lights up when it's working. I would have thought anyway- I can understand someone not wanting a stick but if you are using a device like the meta glasses to help you see I think it's reasonable to also let other people know the device is active via the indicators.

Someone who is recording but has disabled or covered up any indication they are doing so or is otherwise trying to disguise they are meta glasses is automatically suspect in my eyes.

If the point of the glasses was to help people you would have thought there would be some branding on the glasses as most tech brands want to advertise their cool tech. Or else they would be very recognisably MetaGlasses, the way apple watches are designed to look recognisable. Instead they are designed to be as subtle as possible and look like regular ray-bands with little distinctive branding. This to me suggests their covert nature was always meant to be a selling point.

I don’t know - if you had a disability that wasn’t visible and the glasses helped you get around would you want an obvious branded sign on your glasses? Some people would and some people wouldn’t. I take medication for mental health reasons but wouldn’t want this painted on my forehead so people knew.

I’m not dismissing the very real concerns about the use of these glasses - would just love to find a way to discourage their use for bad purposes without negatively affecting the amazing positive impact they could have.

I guess you taking medication doesn’t impinge on my right for privacy?

I think if visually impaired people get a lot of benefit from them then good for them. But I still have the right to know when someone near me (how near? No idea) is using them or recording for whatever reason. And I would then move away, sit away from them, turn around, whatever I feel safe doing.

Absolutely, and I agree with your concerns. I think there are countries where you have to have the shutter sound on if you take a phone photo - I can’t really see why visually impaired people, or anyone else, would NEED to record through their glasses. I don’t know how easy it is to prevent people from being able to bypass lights for recording etc but that could be a solution.

As an aside, if you’re in public you’re probably being recorded by lots of different cameras anyway - I know it feels creepier if it’s an individual filming but unfortunately this is our world now - in some ways it might protect you if somebody had recorded a crime happening could it be used in evidence?

Again, I do understand the concerns completely, just playing devil’s advocate a bit.

They had a call in today on LBC. Someone was saying he has them and they don’t light up to indicate recording, they only record for 90 seconds, and you have to tap the arm to take a photo. He was saying it’s the same as having a phone in your breast pocket filming (I don’t think so, you could bend down in glasses and make sure you filmed what you wanted eg upskirting 🤮) and he said he used them to get info on holiday on sites and to listen to music. I think they are here to stay sadly.

The glasses do way more than film people for 20 seconds. There is a fabulous translation feature which is really useful as I do not live in the UK. I also can walk around safely listening to my audio books and also hear traffic etc coming up behind me. I have taken videos when i am playing tennis (which proved conclusively I don't watch the ball onto the strings ...) and I ask it to tell me about things when we are out and about. I ask it football scores on a Saturday, it tells me the temperature for the following days. I have not used my glasses once for nefarious purposes. The glasses have a light when the video facility is being used. I really like them.

Yeah Barrymore walks around his local town and others wearing them so he's got content for his social media.

Ok, but do you accept other people have the right to be warned when you are nearby and are using them?

I don't have an issue with people being warned. However, you can film using your iphone and apple watch if you want to film without being noticed; putting the phone in a top pocket and driving it from your watch. Not as easy as the glasses, but if someone wants to do it, then they will.

You can be filmed in public on phones and you are being captured by video cameras, mostly security cameras, when out and about all the time anyway. I don't like it but I'm not doing anything wrong, so just go about my day as normal. This isn't much different.

One could argue that he is well known, and recognised, and people can move away from him. But I read he goes into his local supermarket too? And those people have no choice really but to interact with him if they’re at work and he asks where the potatoes are.

There is a man on Instagram who used these videos of him moving around his daily life and says ‘well I’m in public places and I’m allowed to’ and I don’t like that at all.

The rights of one group of people shouldn’t be allowed to trample over the rights of another group of people surely?

What about women and children escaping from violence? Then filmed in the park or wearing a logo school jumper or walking round a museum with other children from the school on a trip?

I beseech people to be level headed about this and not get swept up in the media frenzy. My brother uses these as he is visually impaired with very little vision. They are his lifeline, they help him to read packages, menus and letters. They allow him to have independence. With them he is able to take a group photo of our family with one command. He is able to check medication packets.

Not everyone using them is a pervert.

What's the issue, unless you are up to no good?

Did anyone say that? No they didn’t. People have acknowledged they are good for visually impaired people.

Yes indeed, I actually am quite annoyed I can’t commit my crimes in secret now, and that was my only concern. You rumbled me. Maybe I should get some of my own.

Didn’t know there was an app that’s a good idea

I get that people with disabilities have a right to privacy and shouldn't have to broadcast the details of their disability against their will. However, other people have a right to privacy as well. I am not saying visually people should wear a big sign saying "I'm blind" or carry a white stick if they don't want to. But a visible light when the glasses are being used tells other people both that they are being filmed and that the person filming is not trying to be sneaky about it. If someone is hiding that they are filming we need to normalise being weirded out by it. The same way spotting someone covertly filming with their phone makes me think weirdo.

Disabled people have the right to park in specially reserved spots closer to shops/services etc. However in order that this is not misused they are required to have a blue badge in their car if they want to. The blue badge does not give out medical information. No-one is forced to have a blue badge against their will, but if you don't have one you aren't allowed to park in disabled spaces. Likewise blind people shoud not forced to wear glasses with a small light on the side. But if they want to use glasses with a feature that also records people to help them navigate the world they should accept the light. It doesn't automatically mean they are blind and doesn't give out private medical info. They could be using it for the purposes others gave (translation). But if someone is making it obvious they are filming that's fairer to other people and makes that person look less suspicious.

I think it would be easy to see who is and is not using them inappropriately. A man alone beside children or teenagers just watching is unlikely to be visually impaired. Obviously we can't always tell but someone sitting still or focusing on something is more likely to be a perv.

While I agree I would like to know if I'm being recorded, I think this should be the case for all recording functions on devices. I don't think anyone should be allowed randomly record in a public place and then post online without the persons knowledge and permission. I hope that is how the future will be. It sounds like an impossible thing but time was people said the same about children's pictures. It's a pain sometimes constantly giving consent for things but people get on with it because they understand the rules were introduced for the right reasons. Maybe one day that will be the case for all images, your friends take a picture or video, you send them a consent and then they can post it. No consent no post. That's my hope anyway.