Re: Why are we all just accepting Meta's new spy glasses?

Nomen Nescio <[email protected]>
Newsgroups alt.california,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,misc.consumers
Organization dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 04 Oct 2025, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-
202510.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> posted some 
news:[email protected]:

> Profile Badge for the Achievement Top 1% Poster Top 1% Poster
> 
> I'm struggling to understand why there is no public outcry over Meta's 
> new Rayban glasses. All I see are major tech reviewers promoting them, 
> while barely touching on the privacy concerns. The problem isn't the 
> privacy of the user who buys them, it's the complete violation of 
> privacy for every single person around them. This isn't just another 
> gadget, it's a surveillance device being normalized as a fashion 
> accessory.

California has laws against that.  Get a class action lawsuit going 
against them. 

> The classic argument "if you don't like it, don't buy it" is irrelevant 
> here. My choice not to buy them does not protect my privacy, anyone 
> with the glasses can record my private conversation in a park or a bus 
> without my knowledge or consent.
> 
> And remember who is behind all this: Mr Zucker and Meta. Every 
> stranger's face and every conversation can be used as data to train its 
> AI and improve its ad targeting. Given Mr Zucker's political influence 
> and the threat of tariffs, it feels like the EU won't do anything to 
> stop it.
> 
> edit: I wanted to discuss two different threats here. First, the user 
> itself. Because this isn't the same as a smartphone. People will notice 
> if you're pointing a phone at them, and a hidden camera gets terrible 
> footage. These glasses have a camera aimed directly from their eyes, 
> making it easy to secretly get clear video. While people talk about the 
> LED indicators, it's only a matter of time before a simple hack lets 
> users disable it. The second threat is Meta. We have to just trust that 
> they won't push a silent update to start capturing surveillance footage 
> to their own servers, using the camera and microphone to turn every 
> user into a walking surveillance camera.
> 
> edit 2: Something weird is happening. Many sensible comments are 
> getting heavily downvoted. I think Zuck bots might be real, won't be 
> surprised if the post get taken down in a couple of hours
> 
> Go to privacy
> r/privacy
> 15 days ago
> LbiyVFmn
> 
> https://www.reddittorjg6rue252oqsxryoxengawnmo46qy4kyii5wtqnwfj4ooad.on
> ion/r/privacy/comments/1nldj4m/why_are_we_all_just_accepting_metas_new_
> spy/?rdt=56957
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.