this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
310 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
75494 readers
2919 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
sure, but there the spying is the purpose, whereas with the glasses it's incidental.
you don't buy such gadgets if you don't intend to spy, but people would buy meta glasses for other reason, and meta being able to spy on you is just a side-effect. Plus it' a matter of scale, this has the potential of being much more prominent than some spy camera.
Meta spying is its own issue, and I think a very legitimate concern.
I'm understanding the concern the article mentions about smart glasses in general (independent of who manufactures them) being the user recording people. That's what people seemed to be upset about when Google Glass launched as well.
I think the reason this is a problem with smart glasses but not with spy pens is that smart glasses are more accessible. I mean, you don't just keep a spy pen on your person, or even buy one, in case it will be useful, right? but the smart glasses are just there, on your head. and why not take a few stealthy photos if I can just click and its one, nobody knowing? or even just that you take a photo of something, but there are others in the field of view who have no idea.
and not just with Meta. I don't think other companies either can be trusted with tech like this. Certainly not in this age.
Whoever exhibits that mentality you describe hasn’t waiting for meta to be a creep.
Yeah, they do. You never heard of a crime of opportunity?
Why do you lock your doors at night? You know that anyone who wants to get in can just rake the god damn lock, right? Most people don't want to get into your house, and the ones who do will be able to enter anyway, so what pathology drives you to waste your time like this?
"Incidental"—this is Meta we're talking about, and you can exchange them with any other technofacist and it still applies.
But I wholly agree with you that they know exactly what they are doing. This is how they get people to "participate" in their platforms and algorithms, whether they want to or not.
I don't disagree. I meant for users it is incidental. Most users probably wouldn't buy them with spying as the main purpose(they just also don't really care that it can spy). making them much more widespread than something where spying was the main use-case, making the problem worse.
And as someone else mentioned, once you did get it, the temptation for using it for spying is there for a user. Making it worse than e.g. a spy pen imo, as with that you'd need the intent to spy first, and then buy it, but with this, you buy it for whatever reason and then think "oh, I could just spy now" since you already own the device, which I'd argue leads to more overall spying, so to speak. Maybe you see a video online and go "oh, I can just do that, right now, no effort on my part, since I already own this device".
And for Meta it's like tracking cookies on crack