We are really getting into the cyberpunk dystopia now. Adversarial tech in everyday wearables, hardware cat and mouse. Next step is offence as defence, ICE daemons counter hacking autonomously in the background.
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-glasses/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-g...</a><p>> Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who is presiding over the trial, ordered anyone in the courtroom wearing AI glasses to immediately remove them, noting that any use of facial recognition technology to identify the jurors was banned.<p>I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.
I was actually hoping it could be paired with speech to text very well and help along with hearing aids when the latter do not perfectly work. There are legitimate use cases.
It's pointed AT US ... not for us.
That's because you are intentionally not included in it. Only him and his rich owning class buddies are, the rest of us are only profit-generating NPCs.
> I am not a believer in Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future.<p>I don't know what Zuckerberg's idea of humanity's future is but I believe it's basically inevitable that most people will be wearing always on cameras on their face in the future. The same way they carry always on phones today.<p>The use cases will be too compelling. There have already been demos. Ask the AI watching over your shoulder anything about your past and present and have it act on it.<p>I'm sure as a hater of that future you don't beleive. For me, I'd pick 2040 as the latest that people wearing always on cameras will be as common as smart phones in 2010 and grow at or faster than smartphones when they get it to actually work and be stylish. I'm not saying I'll enjoy being watched by all of those cameras. I'm saying I don't believe I'll have a choice any more than I have a choice of people having smartphones today.
This sounds like a regulation issue to me. If it's regulated it can't be inevitable that "most people" are breaking the law. And if there is a resistance among people then hopefully it will be regulated (I'm talking outside the US now, i.e. where there is a positive correlation between what people in general want and what laws eventually become).
> There have already been demos. Ask the AI watching over your shoulder anything about your past and present and have it act on it.<p>Demo, or verbatim plot of Black Mirror episode?
Demo.<p>As much I enjoyed Black Mirror I thought it's Season 1, "The Entire History of You" entertaining but was poorly conceived. It showed catching your partner cheating as a "would rather not know" thing and it ignored any possible positives. The episode wasn't really about the tech, it was about a failing relationship, a cheating partner, and an untrusting obsessive person.<p>In any case, in that world, which didn't have AI to review and catalog what you saw but only playback of recorded sight, positives they could have mentioned<p>* an end to almost all date rape - since it would be recorded - leaving only the ambiguous cases<p>* a likely decrease in various crimes - since they'd all be recorded<p>* harder for execs/government to make backroom deals - since they're be recordings of them<p>* might end gaslighting in personal relationships<p>* eyewitness reports/testimony would be way more reliable<p>* medical symptom checking - when did some symptom start would be recorded<p>* better performance review - like a pilot reviewing a training landing or an athlete reviewing their own performance.<p>* proof of abuse by customers or by staff.<p>* checking your actual time spent vs you're perceived time spent - I studied for 4 hours, checking though you studied for 45 minutes and kept getting distracted with non-study<p>* less lost items - check where you left your keys, etc....<p>* more accountable police - everyone is recording them<p>* no more need to take photos for memos, since you know everything you looked at is recorded<p>* all car accidents recorded - easier to determine blame<p>Of course adding AI to all of that would add orders of magnitude more usefulness.<p>I'm not saying there are no downsides. As one example, every bowl movement, shower, self pleasure, sex, cold, vomit, misspoke word, awkward situation, etc would be also recoreded.
That's way off base.<p>There's a very significant chunk of people who rarely if ever use the camera on their phone right now. It's not even a matter of who they are or their personal opinions. Cameras simply aren't an exclusive gateway to anything critically important. In many cases a photo or video is an objectively worse format than text.<p>Smartphones became common because they are now the only way to access certain information or authenticate. It's to the extent that we eliminated hard copy documents and changed publishing and proving identity irreversibly. People frequently use smartphones <i>because they have to</i>, and a smartphone without a working camera is still perfectly usable and always will be.<p>This isn't a matter of the public being wooed by a sales pitch or wanting anything in particular. Images require less accessible and reliable methods of interpretation to convey information whereas text <i>is the information</i>. If you're not convinced then consider that both can be generated by AI. A generated image can be convincing and so can generated text, yet we depend on special forms of text such as keys which cannot be generated by AI and any image trying to encode the same is always inferior. An image is never acceptable as a sole or even primary means of authentication. For all these reasons and more, an image is never the only format available.
I would disagree that a smartphone without a working camera is perfectly usable. A lot of the world — especially in developing countries — runs on QR Codes for everything from restaurant menus to electronic payments. Without a camera, other stuff too, like KYC, just doesn't work. These are the sorts of changes that, as you mentioned, are forcing people to use smartphones. And they rely on the camera.
Can the app run on smart glasses, warning you of other smart glasses users nearby? You might not see the notification on your phone.
Tried this on a Pixel 9, after allowing permissions the Start Scanning button does nothing, and there's nothing in the debug log. I do like the idea and might try again in the future if it gets updated. Seems like a good candidate for F-Droid instead of Google Play.
This is really neat, I gotta find an android device to try it. Reminds me of the good old days of wardriving with kismet and netstumbler.<p>I am surprised there isn't an existing BT/BTLE fingerprint table that takes more into account than just what is provided. I would assume each device, or atleast each chipset has subtle quirks that could be used to weed out some of the false positives.<p>the link in the readme for the identifiers doesn't work because it's relative to the repo, so it is below. I like that they did this, it's so much better than the OUI table for mac addresses, because some companies (cough cisco) keep getting new ones.<p><a href="https://bitbucket.org/bluetooth-SIG/public/src/main/assigned_numbers/company_identifiers/company_identifiers.yaml" rel="nofollow">https://bitbucket.org/bluetooth-SIG/public/src/main/assigned...</a>
Currently detects via Meta, Essilor or Snap company ID.<p>So it won't detect my XReal's. I purposefully bought my XReal now because it feels like they might be one of the last models released without cameras.<p>But theoretically I could have the XReal Eye attachment on my glasses, and could be taking video through that. I don't, but the XReal user next to me might.<p>Of course the USB wire hanging from my ear probably makes me look suspicious enough already that the warning probably isn't necessary either way...
Looking at this almost unanimously negative comment section, on a tech website, it appears you should be concerned about your safety while wearing anything that could be seen as being "smart". I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative.<p>> for identifying creeps nearby<p>> I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses.<p>> Would renaming to ”Nearby Glassholes” be acceptable as a PR?<p>> If you're wearing these glasses and recording people in public, you're asking for a sweet punch in the face.
Not advocating for unprovoked violence, but I do hope wearing things like this remains socially unacceptable. Not all technology is good.
> I imagine a non-tech crowd would be even more negative.<p>Weird, I'd assume the opposite. The meme is "tech enthusiasts vs tech workers" implying there are people who like tech and people who understand it enough to distrust it. This tech-crowd is more aligned with the latter.
amen
Good.
Add satellite imagery, nearby self-driving vehicles / Google maps cars, line-of-sight ring doorbells, peripheral street surveillance cameras, police equipment, people in your proximity with a smartphone camera, and various-purpose drones and then you'll have the perfect paranoia alerter.
Could even have their locations show up in your smart glasses.
A big red screen that always says "yes"?
...people with neuralink or similar, in a year or three.
Projects like this are useful not only for identifying creeps nearby, but also for highlighting a broader issue: once AI glasses become common, everyone nearby becomes part of the experiment.<p>I recently switched away from my usual brand when they started shipping AI-enabled glasses. That was my small way of opting out.
Would renaming to <i>”Nearby Glassholes”</i> be acceptable as a PR?
I see the privacy issues with smart glasses.<p>But as someone who can really use the features for daily use - visual assistance (low vision), alwyas worn set of speakers (no need to futz around with airpods everytime i want to listen to audio without looking like a dork)... I really can't wait for android XR smart glasses (sans display)
I believe the problem is not smart glasses <i>per se</i>, but spyware that runs on a lot (if not most) of such devices.<p>Shame the language makes people intrinsically hate the former by associating it with the latter without even questioning it. The idea of smart glasses is cool, the implementations are not.
This is similar to this 2014 project
<a href="https://julianoliver.com/projects/glasshole/" rel="nofollow">https://julianoliver.com/projects/glasshole/</a>
Now we only need tiny drones that locate those glasses, grab them and drop them on the nearby street.
<a href="https://www.404media.co/this-app-warns-you-if-someone-is-wearing-smart-glasses-nearby/" rel="nofollow">https://www.404media.co/this-app-warns-you-if-someone-is-wea...</a>
relevant xkcd <a href="https://xkcd.com/1251/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1251/</a>
Bought my first pair of Meta glasses in Oct 2023 and overall I really enjoying using smart glasses! They are great for quickly/easily capturing life experiences. Also, while traveling or wherever asking and getting information on things your looking at - it's cool & useful. Tho Meta makes trash as my 1st pair died after 14 months of use after a software update and then my 2nd pair only lasted 4 months after some water splashes. I called Ray Ban for tech support and the lady on the phone agreed they are trash per how many calls she gets.<p>I don't care to take pics of strangers tho lots of people who havent adopted them are concerned about such.<p>Overall no more Meta glasses for me Im waiting for Apple's. They have tons of stores to get your glasses fixed and they don't manufacture trash that breaks! Also, maybe Apple will add a privacy feature so your pics and vids anonymize faces not in your personal network.
Do you have children? I frequently want to record things my daughter does but I find that my phone is not close at hand. I am curious if the latency to record is low-enough and I don't want to distract my daughter while she's doing whatever she's doing. I just want to capture the moment for later without interrupting the moment. They advertise it as this but I am curious what it's like in actuality.
I use it all the time for this use case. It's great because your hands are free and you can remain an active participant in play/safety/feeding. I find I capture more moments that I'm more actively involved in vs passively holding the phone and framing the shot.
This is the best use case for them IMHO. So many wonderful shots taken in the moment, and I don't have to see the world through a phone screen for fear of missing a cute picture.<p>Quality is iffy and framing is hard, but I'd rather have a OK photo taken while playing than a great photo taken while standing apart from the action trying to get the perfect shot lined up.
They are great just for that and many instances you want to quickly take a pic and not interupt a moment.
Are you making a counterpoint to the author's premise that smart glasses are an "intolerable intrusion?"<p>I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of your comment since it seems like you're just saying the ray ban glasses are bad for a different reason.
I love smart glasses they are very useful for people who wear sunglasses and use their phone to take pics & videos.<p>Of course with all new technology people fight against it. When I wore them on rollercoasters at Cedar Point in 2024 ride attendees said take those off and store them in a locker at the front entrance of the park (that kid / ride attendant hated them). Yet as Feb 2026 Six flags now allows smart glasses to be worn thru all its parks and 7 million have been sold.<p>Overall I am detailing why they are useful, why I think they will be widely adopted and like many technologies before it those who are against them will adopt them too(its a counter argument here). Sure some creeps will use them and with that in mind Apple has the possible ability to solve that privacy issue as they are a privacy company (all pics and vids taken thru APple glasses faces not in your network are randomize/anonymized).
> Sure some creeps will use them and with that in mind Apple has the possible ability to solve that privacy issue as they are a privacy company (all pics and vids taken thru APple glasses faces not in your network are randomize/anonymized).<p>This is it's own distopian nightmare. No one exists in the world but those you've asserted you've met. What if you meet someone who was in the background of a picture from childhood? Can you never take your pictures from apple?
If you have an iPhone open the camera app and look under "People & Pets," to see that Apple already has those in your network and their pic matched up. As well if you are taking pic or video of people and they are smiling for the camera that's an indication your more likely with them then not.
> Of course with all new technology people fight against it.<p>People have been fighting against smart glasses since 2012.<p>Apple may end up with a feature to post-edit others out, and versions down the road from that one they may have a feature where you can register faces for a current session and then it auto-blurs others. Making its own assumptions about in-network or not and who should be blurred would be a bad user experience with all it gets wrong; more than a "privacy" company, apple spends a lot more marketing their optimized UX -- "it just works" -- for the average person
Google glass was a joke of a technology in terms of being useful. Meta's when they are working are actual a useful product especially for those who already wear sunglasses and use their phone to take pics/vids. Besides normal pic/videography you can now capture moments when your hands arent free (skiing, rollercoaster, tubing, kayaking, etc)
Your proposed solution is in itself a privacy nightmare. Imagine Apple having to know your entire network of non-apple users just to not mess up your videos with friends.
Also noting my disdain for Meta glasses due to their lack of quality and solid customer service Apple will provide.
Need an iOS.<p>But I think very soon the whole detection won’t be enough, because most people will have glasses, phones, CCTV, etc., I think the best is protecting yourself, so a cloak mask or similar, where for humans it’s barely visible but for machines it blocks you from being scanned or recorded.
So the bodycam that I have because of threats to my person is okay and somehow different?
I might be misreading your comment so that being said:<p>If you wear a body cam because you feel threatened, hopefully you tell others that you're potentially recording them. The other catch is that the smart glasses do more than simply record video such as facial recognition and so on. Often these are things that have privacy ramifications that neither the wearer or the observer know exactly.
No, that honestly sounds like something I'd prefer to avoid being around too.
This is a real issue. I met up with someone for lunch today and we have both been harassed and stalked by the same individual. She has called the police about him before, and he is likely a psychopath. He would love to get his hands on a set of these. He already uses multiple phones and other tech to track people.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
The dichotomy between the statement in the repo "False positives are <i>likely</i>" and the app message "Smart Glasses are <i>probably</i> nearby" is interesting.
I don't think those are contradictory. Say each notification has a 90% chance of being true, so it's reasonable to say "probably". After 10+ notifications, each of which was individually probable, it is still very likely that at least one of them was a false positive.
“When using the app you are <i>likely</i> to experience false positives, and when the app alerts you, smart glasses are <i>probably</i> nearby.”<p>Nothing contradictory there.<p>Even “…when the app alerts you, smart glasses are <i>likely</i> nearby” might be reasonable.
That's not a dichotomy.
Perceptions of probability:<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F4omgy8xvzzx41.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D26397fa3c2b65be85aa3ef82b94cdfb842bc78cd" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....</a>
[dead]
Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.
> <i>Sooo technically this is on the edge of legal/not legal, depending on your intent and what the judge had for lunch that day. ID'ing devices without consent is a grey area at best.</i><p>It's looking at the BLE advertising packets that they send out to everybody. The only thing stored is manufacturer ID, not a device ID (which you wouldn't be able to get anyways).<p>You might as well try to press charges against Apple or Google for putting readable names for nearby devices that aren't yours in the bluetooth pairing screen.
Filming/video and lookups of people filtered through a corporate data mining operation without their consent should also be illegal. I'll take my chances, thank you.<p>I recently had to interact with an idiot wearing meta glasses. There should be a mandatory consent requirement AND an "on air" red led.
I'd probably go for "the device explicitly allowed itself to be ID'd by intentionally broadcasting a signal intended for this purpose."
So if I run a Wi-Fi Monitor Mode pcap and Wireshark automatically renders MACs as the company they belong to, that's not legal now?
What region has laws that you're not allowed to look at a packet that was broadcast from a device? This sounds prima facie absurd, but I know a lot of strange laws exist out there.
This is a case where any law is strange, but so is a lack of a law, for some.<p><pre><code> * What do you mean it's allowed for people to record me while I'm telling them off?
* What do you mean I'm not allowed to remember (with high fidelity) what someone said to me?
</code></pre>
Either way, someone thinks it's weird.
> judge had for lunch<p>This would be a criminal matter, so a jury would have to decide if you're guilty. I feel like you'd have a hard time convincing 12 jurors that you're doing something wrong here.
Is this legal advice?
[citation needed]
I'm a bit torn on this because (at least in the sci-fi utopia stories) when a critical mass of people are recording full time then interpersonal crime and anti-social behavior is strongly discouraged. It's like an honor-based culture at scale.
> It's like an honor-based culture at scale.<p>Except the basis of that culture would not be honour, would it? A critical mass of people scrutinizing and reporting others' actions might lead to a compliance-based culture. It's different IMO. i.e. intrinsic motivation to behave well (honour, morality, decency) versus extrinsic motivation to behave well (fear of unpopularity, law enforcement, mob reaction, etc.)
It's like how people misunderstand trust. "I trust open source software because I can review the code." No you don't. If you need to review the code then you are already not trusting it. Same deal with "honor" — the entire point of honor is you don't need eyes everywhere to look for misbehavior. You trust people to do the right thing. There is no trust in a police state.
Right. God help you in such a society if the power goes out.
I think you're missing the point. Or, on re-reading, the parent is missing the point.<p>"Honor culture" or "Culture of honor" is the term for people who are thin-skinned, quick to offense, and worried more about appearances than substance.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_United_States)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_Uni...</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing</a><p>It's all about a shame-based society. When someone is made to feel ashamed, they might lash out. It's practically the opposite of guilt, which is directed inwardly.<p>At the margins, a shamed person might commit mass murder, while a guilty person might commit suicide.<p>Before you get to the margin, both guilty people and shamed people might alter their behavior in beneficial ways, but they do it for subtly different reasons.
Thanks. I had to be reminded about that phrase "honor culture" and, yes, I've heard that definition before.<p>I was focused on how I think an "honourable person" behaves, which is ... IMO ... someone who behaves well regardless of whether or not someone is watching them. i.e. being guided by a personal moral compass, without cultural shame, guilt, government laws, religious conventions, or physical fear being primary motivators<p>But of course, if I adopt a religion's or legal system's idea of morality as my personal compass (certainly the easiest way to go, and easily installed in youth) ... then the distinction falls apart. Cheers.
> But of course, if I adopt a religion's or legal system's idea of morality as my personal compass (certainly the easiest way to go, and easily installed in youth) ... then the distinction falls apart.<p>That's obviously part of it, but not the entirety of it. Guiding your own behavior is different than feeling compelled to also dictate others' behavior. Honor culture is usually putatively religious, yet is diametrically opposed to "judge not lest ye be judged."<p>To be fully immersed in it is to feel personally slighted by any perceived transgressions against the normal order of things, and to have zero sense of proportion about which things are truly harmful to all of us, and which things are simply not how we would do things or prefer things to be done.
Yes look at this article showing all of the wonderful anti-social behaviour prevented by smart glasses: <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx23ke7rm7go" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx23ke7rm7go</a><p>(hint: smart glasses encourage anti social behaviour for online clout.)
Mass recording discourages social behavior, not anti-social behavior.
Would you consider East Germany a sort of social Utopia?
50 years ago anti-social behavior included homosexuality.
It will be a delight for anyone who ever wished there existed footage of every time they vomited in public or face-planted after tripping on a cobblestone.
Which sci-fi utopia stories exactly are you referring to? Please remind me, because all the scifi with ubiquitous surveillace I recall are about dystopias instead.
Right, this is more like Black Mirror S1E3 "The Entire History of You"
I can't recall exactly but it may have been <i>The Light of Other Days</i>
Firstly, fear and honor are far from being the same thing. Second, we already have this in our society today via smartphones and things have not changed for the better. If anything, society is more torn than ever.
from my recollection in most of the stories that is the primary starting point of the narrative but as the story goes along it turns out what you have is a dystopia, which is what it looks like we would actually get.
That's the opposite of honor-based, and those stories are warnings about going down that path.
"Honor-based" has a specific meaning, and it is not good.<p>If the parent is torn about whether this is good or bad, they're <i>really</i> not paying attention.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing</a><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_United_States)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_Uni...</a>
<a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/12/glasshole/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/2013/12/glasshole/</a><p><a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole" rel="nofollow">https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole</a><p><a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=glasshole&sort=byDate&type=story" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...</a>