Remix.run Logo
US police fear Meta smart glasses could be used to secretly record them(theguardian.com)
69 points by bookofjoe 2 hours ago | 58 comments
declan_roberts 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This kind of thing just reeks as a meta marketing ploy. My eyes were opened when I started attending some marketing all-hands at my last FANG employer. They do this kind of thing all of the time.

Havoc 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

Agreed. They’d love the message to be less pervert glasses and more protect your rights

adolph 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

Article specifically mentions the term "pervert glasses"

  US police and federal agents are not alone in their fear. Concern among the public and privacy experts over Meta’s smart glasses, widely dubbed “pervert glasses”, is growing. The technology enables its wearers to record people without their consent and has already been used to harass people.
jtokoph 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

The article can be 100% written by the Guardian but with a seed planted by a “leak” from Meta.

atrus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They'll be fine. As the police often say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

mc32 an hour ago | parent [-]

Indeed. In addition, for the most part, even police view their cameras as a positive. Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.

The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.

infecto an hour ago | parent [-]

Where do we get this anecdote that US police like wearing cameras? I have no opinion but am curious if that is true. My own anecdote is the number of times we see police cover or prevent recording when they have discussions with surrounding police or other incriminating acts. Of course biased because those surface with FOIA requests but it’s hard to believe police like it.

kijashdkujdfhas 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

One of my favorite subgenres of body cam videos on YouTube are those where a cop, politician, or other official is under suspicion of some crime and is angling for an off-camera conversation to discuss how this whole thing could be swept under the rug, and the camera-wearing cop ignores or deflects the request, possibly getting to a point of outright refusing to talk off camera.

Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.

JamesBarney 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's more mixed. They like it because shields them from frivolous complaints, and lets them document evidence against subjects.

They don't like it when management uses it for frivolous minor policy enforcement or they feel like it reduces their ability to use discretion.

But overall police officers who are given cameras tend to me more positive after using them.

infecto 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

So no citations?

refulgentis 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine."; "Don't be curmudgeonly."

FWIW, with a foothold in both domains, this is quite similar to a cop forum poster dismissing all conversation on CVEs until they get a citation on whether or not SWEs like memory safe languages. It's asking for research, when it can only be afforded an opinion poll, and the issue is too complex to boil down to "yes" or "no" - i.e. some "no"s may reveal the underbelly of dislikable cops, some "no"s may reveal it causes them to lack discretion in enforcement due to an over-zealous manager.

I don't agree with your assertion of numerous incidents where we see police prevent recording, but understand generally you're handwaving at some stuff you saw some time, and that there's certainly > 0 of those incidents, and don't see a need to halt conversation until you provide a citation / not an anecdote.

adolph 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here is an interesting quick read about the Australian experience with body worn cameras (BWC). I selected it from the search results since many of the US-centric results are sourced from DoJ or similar which may be seen as less than objective.

My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.

https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/doi/10.1093/police...

mc32 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Things have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large.

Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.

infecto 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

So no citations then? We can definitely come up with idea though like you have. Again not trying to poke hard here but you shared a datapoint and I am curious if there is data that backs it up.

mc32 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

There don’t seem to be recent studies. Mostly the reports go on to say that they are overall positive but that the overall positivity depends on department policies, rollout, etc.

It looks like it’s too early to tell for certain. There are reports and police accounts that cover the spectrum. From what I’ve read online, a plurality of officers think it’s positive. Some say it has changed police and citizen behavior others say it hasn’t impacted citizen nor police behavior.

The overall temperature is positive. My take is that it’s positive as well. Bad cops and bad civilians don’t like it. The rest have some trepidation over privacy and some other aspects, but never the less see it as positive.

dentemple an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clearly, all Big Tech needs to do is to create some version of "Flock-powered" smart glasses and, all of a sudden, U.S. police will become Meta's biggest cheerleaders here.

jordanb an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like this is a submarine ad for the glasses by Meta.

jnwatson an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That was my thinking. It is the first legit use case I've heard.

webdoodle 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep, this doesn't feel organic at all. Meta must be pretty desperate if they are going to go against the blue to sell spyglasses.

idiotsecant an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

if it is it's genius marketing - they aren't pervert glasses, they're tools to fight the man!!!

The longer I typed in that sentence the more convinced I am youre probably right.

nicce an hour ago | parent [-]

Imagine a world were you see glasses being sold out just to prove that police is acting against the law.

2PqboPPmKegvanx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

don't they know?

>“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

kyralis 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

The irony of someone on Fox News arguing for compromise is thick.

binarysolo 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sousveillance is one of the few acceptable use cases for these meta glasses that I can support.

pjc50 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The panopticon is only supposed to look out, not in.

TheChaplain 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am a little more concerned over creeps, stalkers, pedos and teenage bullies.

samrus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do love the irony and schedenfruede, but this isnt about recording in public areas, its about recording the inside of prisons and ICE concentration camps. That is generally not something you can legally record and is analogous to a flock camera inside your office or house, which most people would agree is bad

Ydarbleoj an hour ago | parent | next [-]

We should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?

chasd00 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> What are they hiding

the privacy of prisoners maybe. A prison cell is not a public place (nor the hallways either) so there is an actual expectation of privacy there.

alistairSH 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

Lack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.

samrus 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, they need to be able hide any weaknesses that will allow prison breaks. A prisoner or their collaborators can use this footage to gain intel about these things and break people out. People who might deserve being in prison, like murderers and rapists and stuff

dbingham an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad?

Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.

idiotsecant an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes I can imagine could be quite embarrassing for the abusers.

itsmartapuntocm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why did they do something wrong?

michaelhillaert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably police officers will start to use them as well at some point in the future...

cogman10 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

A lot of cops already have cameras on their chest (which they can freely turn off and mute). Meta glasses buy them very little.

jonathanstrange 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Who doesn't fear that...

exe34 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I know that mass surveillance is inevitable, which is why I would prefer the circle to 1984. If they're watching us, we might as well watch them.

pmdulaney 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could be?

YarickR2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fear not; they _will_ be used to secretly record them.

morkalork an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How long until a random person wearing Raybans in one of those states that banned recording within X-feet of an officer gets shot?

ck2 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

wait 'til they learn watches now can record them and upload in realtime via LTE

smartwatches are also just one or two generations away from having cameras

bookofjoe 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

AirPods Pro will have them in the very near future

moh_maya an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Cops apprehensive about impending Orwellian state”

ratelimitsteve an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

aren't these the same people telling us that AI-powered cameras on every street corner will make everything better for everyone? What do they have to fear from people seeing what they do? Why do the police fight so hard to ensure everyone else is constantly being observed but also to ensure that they are never being observed? Ostensibly, police act in our name and to our benefit. Why are we kept in the dark as to what they do?

SoftTalker an hour ago | parent [-]

This isn't about cameras in public. It's clearly established that people can record/photograph the police in public as long as they aren't interfering with them.

This is about cameras in secure facilites, such as in a prison or jail. Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.

skeledrew 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Without randomness, things can be easily hidden. That's why random searches too are a thing. Put in notice that "hey there be cameras/inspections at this time in this place" and you find everything in order on the footage, while shenanigans continue otherwise.

ratelimitsteve 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in

you're right. there's also very obvious good arguments for allowing recording and public access to recording, such as the incident where a prisoner was locked in a scalding shower until he was so badly burned that his skin "fell off at the touch" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Darren_Rainey). Like so many incidents of its kind, there was absolutely no hard evidence available to prove what happened and it ended up being yet another case where someone died horrifically and officially no one was found to have done anything wrong but several million dollars did change hands. If prison guards are torturing prisoners to death and getting away with it, the argument that they don't need surveillance needs to be a whole lot better than "probably good".

drdexebtjl 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There’s probably an argument, I wouldn’t say it’s a good one.

nisegami an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>Those spaces should be subject to some form of public inspection but there's probably a good argument to not allow random cameras in.

Earlier this year various elected officials tried to perform exactly that kind of public inspection of ICE facilities and met a lot of resistance. I know that some subset of these were just publicity stunts, but despite that, the fact remains that the public needs to be aware of what detention in those facilities is like and if the DHS makes choices that result in random cameras being the only way to do that, then they should reap what they sow.

jimt1234 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every time I've interacted with the police while wearing sunglasses (when I was younger and lived near the beach) they've instructed me to remove them. I was told they need to see my pupils to get an idea if I'm under the influence. Not saying I agree with any of this, just saying the cops already have a way to negate the creepy sunglasses.

dmitrygr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why? As they say: no expectation of privacy in the public space, amirite?

m4ck_ an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Also, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.

frenchtoast8 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Is the inside of a jail cell a public space?

hackyhacky an hour ago | parent [-]

In at least two senses, yes:

1. It is owned by the public. The public has a right to know how its tax dollars are being spent.

2. Certainly there is no expectations of privacy in a jail cell, as the jail administrators and guards can enter at any time.

greenavocado 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The police do not care. They already have iPhones stuck in their face the millisecond they pull someone over.

whh 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

In a lot of videos they really really really care.

aaroninsf an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The pretense that meta will not simply

- prevent or more likely perform but withhold and deny existence of recordings of policing

- give police total access to "private" recordings

is ludicrous.

Meta is literally a surveillance company which as a side hustle addicts people to feeds which destroy their mental health and social relationships and sense of self worth, in service of keepting them docile, consuming, and politically steered.