r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 13 '26

Society The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public

https://tech.yahoo.com/wearables/articles/backlash-strong-people-pervert-glasses-165000816.html
46.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

71

u/Punch-N-Judy Jul 13 '26

Why does a parent accept cameras at every intersection taking photos of their kid though? That's visible too. We accept when it's top-down and push back at the consumer level.

70

u/austinw_568 Jul 13 '26

Because the parent believes that the intersection cameras protect them from crime or help catch criminals whereas they believe the glasses cameras are used to record them or their families for malicious reasons.

34

u/ISeeDeadPackets Jul 13 '26

I literally saw someone walk into a gym locker room wearing a pair yesterday. He acted mystified when I told him to put them away. It doesn't shock me because I've run into people facetiming in there too but seriously? It's never ok, but kids are in there sometimes.

4

u/AssDimple Jul 13 '26

Good on you for catching that. I honestly don't think I spend enough time looking at other people in the locker room to have even noticed something like that.

9

u/anthrax9999 Jul 13 '26

Acted is the key word. He knew what he was doing and thought he would get away with it.

3

u/Onphone_irl Jul 14 '26

maybe he was just living his life with them on. You're thinking that the dude was trying to record naked men and even worse be a pedophile?

I think the glasses are cool. I'd want to have terminator data or maps I'm my FOV. I'm not a pervert. I'm not interested in filming people, I hate when people are in my photos actually.

stop acting like everyone is a terrible person. some gross people take upskirt pictures of girls with their cell phones. most of us just want to txt people take photos of cool things and scroll reddit, including you.

5

u/sysiphean Jul 14 '26

Not everyone with them is intentionally being a pervert about them, true.

However, if you are wearing them and not being aware of that when going in sensitive places like a locker room, you are still a terrible person, in the same way that someone who carelessly leaves a loaded gun where a toddler is playing doesn’t intend to cause harm but is still a terrible person.

If you are going to wear glasses that push the edge of removing people’s privacy, and you are careless or just don’t even think about that, you are a huge part of the problem. In some ways it’s worse than someone who it trying to be a pervert with them, because at least that person is aware they are the bad guy.

2

u/MrJMSnow Jul 17 '26

What you want is a different product than meta glasses. AR glasses are what you want if you want a HUD. Meta glasses are just cameras as far as I can tell.

1

u/Onphone_irl Jul 17 '26

yeah you're right I'm just talking about the idea of wearable tech like this as a general point

2

u/Personal_Reveal1653 Jul 13 '26

You should have reported him to the gym. They'd probably ban him.

2

u/ISeeDeadPackets Jul 13 '26

I did, no idea if they did I was on my way out.

20

u/darianbrown Jul 13 '26

Intersection cameras are at least purported to serve another purpose. The pervert glasses have no realistic uses compared to a real camera, except for spying and perving.

Real cameras take better quality shots. Pervert glasses only differ from a real camera in that they are intentionally trying to conceal the camera.

5

u/Skeptical_JN68 Jul 13 '26

Actually, for many in the low vision and blind community, these offer a relatively affordable option to other, more specialized (read: costly) assistive technologies. Other possible applications of the tech could help folks with dementia and memory loss, learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and more. But I agree there should be a visual cue apparent to everyone when the camera is in use.

2

u/anthrax9999 Jul 13 '26

I propose hard hats with a big flashing light on top like a cop car.

9

u/GeekBrownBear Jul 13 '26

IDK why this is always the only argument. The best use we have for our meta glasses is to record our daughter while holding or playing with her. She doesn't attack our glasses but she 100% attacks the phone. Or when you are kayaking/canoeing. Or recording how you do a task for later review or training.

So yeah, there are negatives to what people might be using these, but they are super useful when you want a hands free camera.

Also, yes, you may argue that you don't wear these all the time but if they are ALSO my sunglasses, why would I take two pairs when I'm out. Or for me, I can't wear contacts, so they could also my prescription glasses and I'm only ever going to wear one pair the whole day.

Intention and action are far more important than the existence of the tech itself.

4

u/whatsbobgonnado Jul 13 '26

lots of people have said that blind people can use them to navigate their environment 

1

u/Personal_Reveal1653 Jul 13 '26

Are any blind people using them?

3

u/SIGMA920 Jul 13 '26

Some. Not enough to back making them acceptable through.

0

u/Superguy230 Jul 16 '26

Yea fuck those blind people there’s not enough of them

2

u/SIGMA920 Jul 16 '26

When you hurt 50 people for everyone 1 you benefit, there's a problem.

2

u/Superguy230 Jul 16 '26

So you think blind people shouldn’t wear these because for every blind person it helps to see, it “hurts” 50 people?

1

u/SIGMA920 Jul 16 '26

I think that the existing product should be banned and a heavily limited version that can only be given to those who are blind should be made for them to use.

When your product is overwhelmingly used by perverts or for surveillance, it's crossed the line. It's that simple.

1

u/Suspicious_Radio_848 Jul 13 '26

Exactly, I don't know why people always bring this up and store security cameras as if they're remotely the same. The comparison is disingenuous. I don't expect to be someone's social media content when an intersection cam is recording traffic for safety, or potentially followed into a washroom or private area.

-2

u/mailslot Jul 13 '26

They could be useful for overlaying warning icons over people that facial recognition has identified as actual perverts listed on offender registries.

3

u/darianbrown Jul 13 '26

Any smart device connected to another device or able to be connected to another device can be breached and exploited. This is a fucking terrible idea.

1

u/mailslot Jul 13 '26

I’d rather tattoo the foreheads of dangerous offenders on the registry, but too many people are concerned about the rights & dignity of dangerous criminals… so, innocent people potentially have to suffer at the hands of their abuse because society refuses to protect the innocent.

2

u/Personal_Reveal1653 Jul 13 '26

It's so delusional. They rarely pull the records from these cameras to solve crimes. And NEVER in real time.

1

u/sysiphean Jul 13 '26

Or maybe we don’t “accept” it as much as we know that nebulous massive corporations and governments are nearly impossible to fight against, but “that person in front of me” can be confronted and maybe stopped.

19

u/FluffyProphet Jul 13 '26

The biggest difference is that a camera on a stick doesn't read as a person using it; it reads as some abstract concept. A person with a camera is very personal.

3

u/Rociel Jul 13 '26

In a world where camera can be hidden in a pen or a button where nobody will see it, going after the person that does not particularly try to hide their camera that has led light to warn people about recording - it's kinda stupid to be honest.

To be fair tho, I personally find the whole premise of glasses replacing your phone kinda stupid. They have their niche uses but most people that buy them don't use them for those niche cases.

1

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

Most people don’t really know about all the kinds of hidden cameras though. They do know about the glasses. And the light is too easy to get around I’ve literally seen instructions for removing/replacing/rigging it

0

u/Rociel Jul 14 '26

Yes, most really don't know and that is a problem. They should be informed on that instead of blindly attacking this tech like a bunch of luddites.

Honestly tho I don't have a real solution to propose here. People really do realllly like to stay ignorant.

The LED can be messed with, yes. There have been recent efforts by Meta to make sure the camera does not work if the LED has been messed with. Of course it will never be perfect and someone will find a way but still...people that realllly wanf to candidly record you will use different and better methods anyway.

1

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

That’s true that the worst people will use better hidden cameras. But that doesn’t change all the people that an easy access “cool” hidden camera that has a lot of other functions won’t produce a lot more creep shots than if that didn’t exist. A lot of criminality is about ease of access, much like the rest of life/behavior

All being more informed will do is make people against better hidden cameras and also these glasses lol, not seeing where you get off calling them luddites about it.

The problem is you don’t think it’s a problem in general, it that you object to them thinking it’s a problem when they don’t know about other cameras.

0

u/SomethingAboutUsers Jul 13 '26

So what you're saying is that corporations aren't people after all...

1

u/Melicor Jul 14 '26

Unless they're in Delaware, then they get to vote too.

25

u/bristow84 Jul 13 '26

Because there is argument to be made that things like red light/intersection cameras are useful for public safety. The data that they collect is also not within the public realm and some Joe Schmo can’t just decide to upload pics or videos that he captured of random people in people to their IG/FB/Reddit/whatevethefuck.

These are not that, they are in the hands of private citizens and while people expect red light/intersection cameras are recording and are thus aware of them, the same cannot be said for these things.

3

u/StinkyTurd89 Jul 13 '26

I mean they can if it's a public camera there is a process to request the footage.

5

u/Rich_Housing971 Jul 13 '26

even if someone gets footage of my kids in public what's the worst they can do? they're at a distance, and my kid is properly clothed. are you freaking out if your kid is at disneyland and someone is filming from their phone? never take your child outside in public, they could get filmed!

there's a reason you don't need consent to film people in public spaces- it doesn't hurt you.

2

u/StinkyTurd89 Jul 13 '26

I wasn't complaining I think public filming is fine. Just pointing out people who think security cameras are fine because people can't see the footage is wrong people can fairly easily get the footage from government cameras.

0

u/Sh0wmey0urbutth0le Jul 13 '26

With AI all they need is 1 picture to start making CP.

0

u/Rich_Housing971 Jul 14 '26

I can assure you there are already pictures of you and your kids on the internet or you as a child. You're not going to get hurt from it.

1

u/Corevus Jul 13 '26

I have to say, these would have been kind of useful for me following and recording ice agents in the freezing cold last winter my hands were so frozen some days.

But outside of that, i would feel too embarrassed wearing them.

1

u/fresh_like_Oprah Jul 14 '26

There's an argument to be made that wearing a camera on your head is not just to record asses in yoga pants

2

u/mutexsprinkles Jul 13 '26

They're not attached to a human. If there was a cop at every intersection visibly pointing a camera at cars, people would go mental.

I think when they're fixed in place they're conceptually "passive" and part of the background even if they collect no less data.

1

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

Now I want someone to do a street art project where we start drawing cops holding the camera on the wall/pole/whatever where the camera is. Make it explicit. Wonder how that would affect things

2

u/Krail Jul 13 '26

It's not about seeing the intrusion so much as it's about seeing the intruder. 

The person with recording glasses can personally experience judgement and shame from the people around them. It becomes something that is not socially safe to do. 

We can't apply that same immediate realtime social pressure when it comes to online privacy or flock cameras. 

2

u/Psychological_Ad1999 Jul 13 '26

The majority of people where I live are also against that and are fighting local the government (who is acting against the majority) to remove those cameras. I do see people speaking out against the surveillance state more which I would not have said 18 months ago.

Also, vandalizing Flock cameras is bad, do not use things that could render them inoperable like primer on the lens.

0

u/FadedVictor Jul 13 '26

This is a great fucking question. Thank you.

0

u/ASpaceOstrich Jul 14 '26

Literally we're accepting mass surveillance but rejecting the sole case where there's a consumer benefit attached.

Which is doubly ironic because there are independent engineers who've made smart glasses that don't have any of the mass surveillance issues, but outside of niche hobbyist communities you could not wear them, because they would be assumed to be bad because people are people, and people are stupid.