this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
697 points (98.7% liked)

Privacy

10262 readers
894 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Smart glasses equipped with cameras, microphones, and AI are a creeping privacy and security nightmare, prompting backlash.

And rightfully so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There are plenty of legit use cases for a camera. Traveling in a foreign place the glasses could overlay text in your language. Looking at a transit table it could highlight the correct route and time. And anytime you meet someone new it could store their name and face in a database.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

And anytime you meet someone new it could store their name and face in a database.

Enough of this dystopian bullshit! Or was that satire?

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It was a bit self-satirical. But it would be really helpful for me, if it existed. I’m not about to buy a face camera but I can imagine some people in sales might like such a feature.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If someone in sales is logging and recording my interactions with them, storing my name and face in a database and feeding it into facial recognition software, then I'm not buying anything from them.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago

Me neither. In fact regardless of what’s on their face they can fuck right off.

[–] Meissnerscorpsucle@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

one of the leaked "test" features that everyone hated was the facial recognition...and i get it. lot's of opertunity for abuse. Shame though as that would be SO usfull to those with prosopagnosia or people like me who have an inability to remember names. It has hurt me profesionaly throughout my life. having the name and a few relivent facts about people pop up would just put me on the same playing field with those who can remember.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

does that utility outweigh the privacy of the public though?

Shame it's meta because the answer will always skew towards invading privacy and shitting on the others.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 4 points 20 hours ago

Exactly. Navigating a city isn't really that hard from a phone, even if you don't speak the language. You don't need to be staring at it the whole time if you learn how to just orient yourself on a street grid. Having a HUD for that purpose might be a neat trick, but not at the expense of being constantly recorded.

[–] JayGray91@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago

Maybe antlion already replied to you (because I see two replies below your post but one is removed/deleted) but I didn't take antlion's comment as if it outweigh the privacy invasion.

Though, it is a shame that all the cool tech and legit use cases are for nothing because it's packaged with invasive spyware.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There is no privacy in public, by definition of those two words. I’m less concerned about a camera on somebodies face, and more concerned about the legality of doing facial recognition, and identifying and tracking of people without their explicit consent. See one is about the personal utility of camera-interfaced computing, and the other is corporate espionage. But unless lawmakers can draw that line and enforce it, we will probably just end up with spyware.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -2 points 20 hours ago

I don't see the uproar over cameras on the face when pinhole button cameras have existed for decades.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

There is no privacy in public, by definition of those two words.

creep. so quick to carve out the rules by which you and other can invade the privacy of individuals. you know there's a difference between general photography and this. you know this. I don't have to explain it to you.

you're just a creep who wants to creep on women and kids.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You caught me. I go around with my wife and daughter so I can get away with being a creep. Don’t tell the moms on the playground.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

if you cared about them you'd care about this. the fact that you immediately jump to legal definitions created in the age of film is absurd; there was never a minox that had 4k video, but that's what we're looking at these days. and you don't seem to care that there's a booming market to disable the recording lights.

If I were your wife and daughter I'd be creeped out by you.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

You don’t know shit about me bro. Creepers gonna creep. If they want to hide a camera they can do it in lapel pin or something. Being paranoid about it won’t stop anything. Making legislation to require a recording light will just de-tune the public’s vigilance when they don’t see a light. It won’t stop people from taking discrete photos. If you’re scared of having your photo taken, stay inside. There are a huge number of automatic license plate cameras owned by corporations logging your plates. They may also be capturing and analyzing your face. That is a lot more concerning to me than some dude wearing glasses.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Creepers gonna creep.

and you want them to have better equipment to creep with.

they want to hide a camera they can do it in lapel pin or something.

lapel pin cameras are shitty resolution, and you can't point them at your target by moving your head.

stop acting like it's not a problem. I'm not scared of having MY photo taken, it's the upskirts on escalators and creeps peering down blouses, you dolt.

I despise license plate cameras, but that's an entirely different kind of invasion of privacy and you KNOW this.

I know you're not concerned by some dude wearing glasses, and I can see you don't give two fucks about those who are.

[–] antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

At least with glasses cameras they aren’t filming anything they can’t already see

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

You don't care. We get it.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

Er. What is the antonym of private?