Meta will disable your smart glasses' camera if you tamper with the recording light

midian182

Posts: 11,843   +179
Staff member
A hot potato: The ability of smart glasses to record and photograph people without their knowledge or consent has long been one of the devices' most controversial aspects. Meta's glasses come with an LED light to show when they're recording, but some individuals have found ways to stop this indicator. Now, the social media giant says it will disable the onboard camera if someone tampers with the light.

Hacking Meta glasses so the white LED light doesn't blink continuously when they're recording has become a business. It was recently found that this service was being offered in 30 states. In one case, a man charged $100 to remove the LED using a drill, dental probe, and some tape.

With its second-generation of glasses, covering the light with tape or object would cause the camera to be disabled, meaning no photos or videos could be taken. This led to a black market industry in which modders charged to disable the LED entirely.

Now, Meta has explained what it is doing to address the problem in an FAQ. It admits that some people "go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED." As such, the devices are being updated so the camera is disabled if the system detects that the light has been tampered with or physically destroyed. The software update is mandatory and currently rolling out.

Meta is also addressing those services that advertise LED tampering. It is working across its social media platforms to remove ads, posts, and Marketplace listings that advertise these kinds of tampering services, banning any accounts that do this.

Meta added that it will take legal action against people or businesses that sell services designed for tampering with the capture LED, both on and off its own platforms.

Meta's VP of wearables, Alex Himel, told The Verge that the update was in the works a few weeks ago, after Meta launched its cheaper Meta glasses without the Ray-Ban branding. Himel said Meta was aware at the time of the increasing amount of misuse of the glasses.

In February, a judge in Meta's child-harm trial warned that anyone wearing smart glasses that recorded the proceedings could face contempt of court charges. There was also a case last year in which a TikTok user claimed she visited a European Wax Center in Manhattan and discovered that her aesthetician was wearing Meta Ray-Bans glasses

Permalink to story:

 
The same scumbags that want to disable the LED will find a way to trick the tamper detection as well and Meta knows that as well as anyone.


I have plenty of reasons to record without wanting an LED light telling everyone I'm recording. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Simply put, I refuse to buy these things if they have a recording light. I already refuse to buy them if they can't record landscape mode. Apple better take notes because I refuse to buy till Apple makes them. I want my smart glasses to integrate with my watch and earphones seamlessly.
 
That is honestly disgusting that Facebook is trying to control how the actual owners use or modify the product post sale, even going as far as pushing mandatory software updates to change how the product works post sale. That is just obnoxious.

Oh well, I suppose Meta is leaving the door wide open for AR glasses from random Chinese companies that don't do that BS.
 
I don't know, it seems like if you have Facebook strapped to your head all day long you've already lost at life.


What if I want to record flights as I'm piloting a Cessna 172, Cirrus SR22, Robinson Helicopter or Citation Jet without distractions and using my hands?

What If I want to simply say "SIRI start recording" and just record?

It doesn't need to be Facebook.

In fact, I want it to be Apple.
 
What if I want to record flights as I'm piloting a Cessna 172, Cirrus SR22, Robinson Helicopter or Citation Jet without distractions and using my hands?

What If I want to simply say "SIRI start recording" and just record?

It doesn't need to be Facebook.

In fact, I want it to be Apple.

You could always use something like a Go Pro camera attached to a hat, or helmet or pretty much anything that doesn't purport to be a "stealth" or surveillance product.
 
Obviously the real fear is from the big organizations. They don't want people filming what goes on INSIDE their establishments. Meta does NOT want secretaries filming board meetings where they're planning to defraud the public. Same for government agencies. Imagine if a Trump insider filmed one of his rants.
 
I have plenty of reasons to record without wanting an LED light telling everyone I'm recording. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Simply put, I refuse to buy these things if they have a recording light. I already refuse to buy them if they can't record landscape mode. Apple better take notes because I refuse to buy till Apple makes them. I want my smart glasses to integrate with my watch and earphones seamlessly.
There's no reasonable expectation in public but there is in direct conversations, whether in public or in private. If you're planning to use those glasses to discretely record direct conversations, you better make sure where you live has single-party consent laws. Cause I tell you right now, anyone I interact with who thinks they can record our conversation without telling me unless they have a very specific justification is a person I won't be interacting with for long.

Also, if you have that many reasons to record without notifying those around you, you're exactly the reason Meta is trying this. If you think those reasons are justified, I'd love to hear some of them and be convinced why I'm wrong. You've talked about wanting to record flights you're piloting. That's very reasonable but who cares if there's an LED in that case?
 
Full stop: no there isn't.
You are wrong, straight up. If you're in a one party consent jurisdiction, perhaps not legally wrong but morally, absolutely. If you don't believe people have a right to expect that they're not clandestinly being recorded when interacting with you, you're just plain not a good person. What do you have to hide or are so paranoid of that you think you need to record so many interactions with others?

But it's cute that you didn't address the rest of my post, only that one sentence. Almost like you don't have a good rebuttal.
 
You are wrong, straight up. If you're in a one party consent jurisdiction, perhaps not legally wrong but morally, absolutely. If you don't believe people have a right to expect that they're not clandestinly being recorded when interacting with you, you're just plain not a good person. What do you have to hide or are so paranoid of that you think you need to record so many interactions with others?

But it's cute that you didn't address the rest of my post, only that one sentence. Almost like you don't have a good rebuttal.

Anything else you want to mix into your salad?

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public. Argue it with the Supreme Court.

There is no appeal except unto God.
 
So Meta is actively working towards stopping shtglasses modders who advertise on Facebook, whilst collecting billions a year off scammers advertising on Facebook. I feel safer already.
 
Anything else you want to mix into your salad?

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public. Argue it with the Supreme Court.

There is no appeal except unto God.
Are you going to address any of the other points I made, or are you just going to keep building this one straw man because you don't have any good rebuttal to the others? Just trying to know how much bad faith to expect.
 
Back