Ironically this is the one use case I can come up with that would prevent me from judging someone using them
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
228 points (99.1% liked)
News
39283 readers
2846 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I kinda feel like thats the point behind putting this in the news tbh.
You can buy a cheap bodycam for under $100. A mid range option with UHD res and a wider angle lens is like $100-$250.
The police stuff (like Motorola) is around $400-$700.
All of these options are cheaper than Meta's glasses and don't come with the explicit purpose of invading privacy for the benefit of Meta.
police frequently "request" you to turn off cameras and get aggressive when you refuse
They also want you off the sidewalk, away from everything, unable to see what they are doing, so on.
I'd bet they know what meta glasses look like too.
Edit: Mobile keyboard typos.
It's probably slightly harder to recognize, especially if painted pink or some other color
Dammit, I’m looking for more reasons to hate them, not the other way around.
Come to think of it maybe we are fighting flock the wrong way.
What if instead of pushing to remove them, we push to make them open access to all, IE we push to allow anyone to do lookups for a small cost (because that's the way to get flock to walk into the trap). Hail it as a tool for police accountability, and let the police unions shut it down for us.
My favorite thing about surveillance cameras is that it's a super easy way to assassinate world leaders.
You would think they would have known better than to connect them to the Internet.
This has ever been the only solution.
You absolutely cannot win against a new technology that confers an advantage, without using that technology. The solution to blanket surveillance, is that everyone have access to genuinely total surveillance.
What if you could see everywhere your politician goes and everyone they meet? Your police officers? The billionaires? All the time? Just like they can you?
The flock CEO is already watching your little girls swim at the pool. The bully from school became a cop and he can see everything you do, then hide his actions and blackmail you.
You can't see the CEO dressed up as a swim instructor, jerking it with sunblock. You can't see the cop driving around in his civilian car exploiting the girls who got away in highschool, for blowjobs.
But you should be able to.
I'm not convinced it's impossible to set up a fake police department and request access.
What are they afraid of?
If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear .
Right? Right?!?!
Something something surveillance for thee not for me
Right, they're worried about security, not evidence of abuse.
What's that they always say, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about."?
Aftermarket 360 surround cameras and mics for cars are available. Along with Zuckerberg's pervert glasses, this would give you better video of a traffic stop than cops have.
Um, aren't all these assholes supposed to be getting recorded anyway?
I want to come up with a Flock pun for this but it’s too early…
Leopards .. something .. something .. face.
They're going to confiscate all glasses now aren't they? Jesus Christ...
I can’t even.