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

Privacy

10249 readers
786 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
517
submitted 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by XLE@piefed.social to c/privacy@lemmy.world
 

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 10 points 16 hours 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 1 points 41 minutes ago

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?

[–] Meissnerscorpsucle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 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 11 points 15 hours 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 2 points 3 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 3 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 -4 points 12 hours 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.

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

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 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.

Er. What is the antonym of private?