• stateofaffairs@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes. I also like how you framed it. “Disabling of the light is sucking meta’s disinformation cock” is poetic.

    • Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      damn, a dremel and some resin to make it appear unmodified again are enough? the dremel is probably optional - my soldering iron would probably suffice, and some transparent tape well placed could also do the job in a pinch. If Meta wanted these glasses to not be so easily modable, they would have implemented at lease SOME check - make the camera look for the light of the led or smth - make it flash a OTP code to be recognized by the cam, which is fucking easy to do

  • mustbe3to20signs@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    13 hours ago

    If anyone had warned this poor retailer in advance… Unfortunately only these lunatic privacy-obsessed and hysteric women foretold this exact scenerio so there was no way to tell.

  • InfiniteGlitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Wait, what? I did not expect The Netherlands to sell these piece of shit stuff. I had hoped, it would be banned/ prohibited in The Netherlands. It should be.

    • Humanius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Parliament has expressed the desire for a clearer ban on these glasses a few weeks ago

      https://nos.nl/artikel/2632327-tweede-kamer-wil-breder-en-duidelijker-verbod-op-camerabril

      Parliament wants wider and clearer ban on camera glasses

      We already have privacy legislation, and it is already not allowed to secretly film someone and share the footage. So parliament is mostly talking about making it more explicit that these camera glasses are not allowed.

      They are currently awaiting an advisory on “AI wearables” by the European Committee for Data Protection, which will arrive later this autumn.

      • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        it is already not allowed to secretly film someone and share the footage.

        But it’s perfectly OK to do as long as you’re the only one watching it afterwards!?

    • hushable@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Last time I went to The Hague, I saw a dedicated rayban/meta store in the city centre

  • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The problem with the light is, it’s incredibly small and dim, so is very easy to miss. Plus, people aren’t aware of what to look for yet because they’re not used to being around this “perv-vision”.

    I saw a guy at a sandwich shop with them and he was loud and bragging about them which was the only reason I knew he had them.

    I’m honestly shocked they’re allowed in Illinois being there’s the “all party consent” law still in effect where any audio surveillance or recording needs to make all parties aware they’re being recorded. Then add in the BIPA (biometric information privacy act) where you KNOW Meta is going to use face ID or facial recognition to tag or show the owner who’s who.

    US https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-glasses-ray-ban-from-public-and-private-use

    UK https://www.change.org/p/ban-meta-ai-glasses