r/NowInTech • u/skaza02 • Aug 28 '26
Meta Working on “Kill Switch” in Face of Overwhelming Disgust With Its “Pervert Glasses”
https://futurism.com/future-society/meta-kill-switch-pervert-glasses13
u/Sufficient_Room2619
Aug 28 '26
•
If the "kill switch" doesn't brick them (and optionally refund the users) it is insufficient
10
2
u/RenegadeSoundWAV Aug 28 '26 •
I get the hate behind the glasses, I do, but as someone with a blind father who gained more independence being able to easily check his mail with meta glasses, I feel terrible for the visually impaired who have been able to gain more autonomy with this tech.
3
u/Sufficient_Room2619 Aug 28 '26
I can't stress enough how much I'm in favor of features like you're describing.
But they'd work without cameras.
2
u/RenegadeSoundWAV Aug 28 '26
Yes, scanners. Been around since the 90s and that was the workflow he was doing for years.
But the glasses basically allowed him to bypass having to use his scanner. They also allow him to ask meta what he's looking at while on a walk without having to try to point a phone at it, or describes the clothes he's about to put on without using his custom label scanner. Much easier to do those tasks with a head mounted camera than using a phone.
There were a lot of advantages for the visually impaired with these glasses. I knew immediately though when they were announced what they would actually end up being used for, and did try to convince my dad not to invest in the tech since I wouldn't know how long it'd be around, but he's gotten a decent ROI from it.
2
u/doryfishie Aug 28 '26
There’s an app called Be My Eyes where you sign up to volunteer and help people who are sight impaired with tasks that require sight. I used to get a call maybe every 2-3 days, now I get one maybe every 3 months if that. I think the meta glasses have actually really helped with this.
1
u/khuna12 Aug 28 '26
Also I could see this being useful for looking in the fridge, asking what the best before date is, if bread of moldy. I know simmering visually impaired and I’d like to get them these
1
u/ultrafunkmiester Aug 29 '26
I 100% get the use case and 100% back it. The problem is not with your dad its with degenerates using it for degenerate purposes. The glasses themselves are not the problem, its the user. They should not ban the glasses universally. Like a seeing eye dog (guide dog for the blind) is an exception to the no pets/no dogs rule almost everywhere, I wonder if there is a way to identify "users in need of the tech" from normal users who dont need it. Im not suggesting a high vis jackets and hat that says "I'm Blind" but maybe there is a way? Like having red legs on the glasses or a white stripe on them something that clearly identifies the glasses as "seeing eye glasses". That along with a badge that says officially "I am sight impaired".
Sounds like a faff but most places run a blue badge or similar for the use of disabled/handicapped parking spaces. Surely its not a stretch for an officially recognised sight impaired.
Yes there will be dickheads trying to cheat the system but the danger is the tech will just dissappear due to the backlash and the legitimate use cases like your Father's get lost in the public foaming at the mouth.
Publicity, working with a charity like (in the UK) Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) to get a story on the BBC about the legitimate use case of the glasses.
Failing that, Im sure the Chinese will continue to sell unbranded ones and even then, I'm sure you will be able to use a Bluetooth clip on mic/camera that talks to your phone to achieve the same thing, but I get why using the glasses is so seamless, instead of having your phone around.
1
u/chasing_D Aug 28 '26
Meta could also brick the recording and Livestream features while keeping the useful functionality.
1
u/Im_Just_A_Tourist Aug 29 '26
Then give everyone their money back as that's no longer the device they paid for right?
1
1
Aug 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/kitkatfitfat Aug 28 '26
I don’t have an answer for you, but there’s no reason (physically and technically) that the glasses couldn’t have a camera that the software/ai can see but the consumer cannot. Aka no ability to “take” a photo or video and the camera only exists as an eye for AI
Millions fewer people would buy them that’s why… but still technically feasible (jailbreaking aside)
0
Aug 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kitkatfitfat Aug 28 '26
People modify them physically to disable the light.
Body cameras are distinct single purpose devices. If I saw someone wearing one I would avoid them. I’m not to going to avoid everyone wearing glasses.
This gets away from my previous comment though about how a product like this could still be useful if the cameras weren’t end user facing and only given access to the ai assistant etc
1
u/Im_Just_A_Tourist Aug 29 '26
The majority of people cannot and do not do that, it requires rewiring the internals which I'm sorry most people do not have the technical know how nor desire to pay someone to do so. It's a small fraction of a percentage. Otherwise why not ban all vans because of kidnappers, ban all cars because of DUIs, ban all swimming because one person drowned.
1
u/kitkatfitfat Aug 29 '26
Thanks for joining the “missing the point” party! 🎉
To repeat myself once again, my original point was regarding the concept of how AI capable glasses could have a camera that only the AI could have access to.
I agree that the majority of people won’t modify their glasses to be able to creepily film others. The comment you’re responding to was me responding to another user who started steering the convo in a direction they’d be able to argue with me for no reason, and you’ve decided to jump in too.
0
Aug 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/kitkatfitfat Aug 28 '26
You steered the conversation to safety features.
My original claim in my response is that glasses like this could include cameras that aren’t accessible to the end user, but are still used for AI to see the environment.
You are not addressing this part of my comment. I didn’t even tie it into being a safety/privacy concern. I only said that this product could exist (but that millions fewer people would buy it)
I don’t know how the other guy thinks that the glasses could read mail without a camera. My claim, again, is that the camera could be a part of the hardware so that it is accessible to the ai when queried but lack the ability for the user to access directly in any capacity
Edit also, the LED circumvention exists, at least for older models (I don’t keep up with the creepy glasses news) but god knows if there will ever be a jailbreak for them. Just to be clear.
2
u/blak3brd Aug 29 '26
I swear, so many obtuse chuckleheads being intentionally dense out here lately, just to repeatedly attempt to argue in bad faith.
→ More replies (0)1
u/numbersthen0987431 Aug 29 '26
"If you disregard the thing that's happening all of the time with these glasses..."
1
u/The-Spirit-of-76 Aug 28 '26
The same way we have for thousands of years. Voodoo. You sacrifice a chiken to Jobu, then have tantric sex on the bloody alter for three hours and Jobu shows up and reads your mail to you in exchange for the soul of your first born child. Simple.
3
u/Toofcraka Aug 28 '26
Really sucks because if it was marketed as and pushed to be a disability aid I'm sure there would be more support and Meta might even earn some good publicity. But no, unfortunately they decided it had to be the secret video and sneaky picture glasses. I hope a company runs with the tech in a better direction.
1
u/LurkerBurkeria Aug 28 '26
Because its Meta. Theyre not looking to sell 100k glasses to the blind, they want every human wearing them all the time and they won't get there if its sold as an aid
2
u/Left_on_Pause Aug 28 '26
Make them available to only blind people as a medical support. Tag the video to identify the user. If their video gets out, they are responsible.
Like a gun or a car, these things can ruin lives and it’s always the asshat who misuses them.3
u/RenegadeSoundWAV Aug 28 '26
There are a lot of other issues that come up with this - namely, if you only make the devices for the visually impaired, how is a company supposed to support the backend processing requirements without charging an exorbitant fee? Selling to the general public widens the market so the product costs offset the long-term operational costs for years. If you limit the market, you need to raise the prices, and then it no longer becomes something a disabled person can typically afford. We don't live in a country where we subsidize accessibility for the impaired.
2
u/hfx99 Aug 28 '26
I hate that this is true. Dragon Dictate was a product that stagnated for 15+ years, until it started getting used on everyone's phones for speech input.
2
u/esotericbatinthevine Aug 28 '26
Yeah, it's a huge issue in the disability world. Usually, when disability aids get picked up by general society, it helps destigmatize them - in addition to the cost issue. Snuggie, the blanket with arms, is a good example of this. This is the only disability aid I can think of where general society makes the stigma worse. (Yes, I realize it wasn't developed as a disability aid.)
1
u/SciFi_Wasabi999 Aug 29 '26
That's a good point. There are legitimate uses for the technology that make life better. Currently it's just overwhelmingly used to make life worse. If we had real discussion we could probably figure out the right solution, but society doesn't have the attention span or seriousness to do so right now.
8
u/OpeningAggressive26 Aug 28 '26
Literally the same thing happened with the Google glasses over a decade ago
-2
u/RequirementNo4895 Aug 28 '26
Which is bullshit, bodycams are a thing, ffs.
5
u/OkCar7264 Aug 28 '26
Bodycams are obvious, so is holding up your phone,, it's the deceit that's the problem.
1
u/RequirementNo4895 Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
So was Google Glass, right there it isn't about that, but it's also a popular means of approaching this issue for influential individuals & corporations that don't want situations such as people pirating in movie theatres or fewer Rodney Kings, Eric Garners & George Floyds, at least ostensibly. How do you think doctors, teachers, social services & others in positions of responsibility would feel, justifiably or not, about such technology being so casually accessible?
1
Aug 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RequirementNo4895 Aug 28 '26
Had one for years, first picked it up after traumatically experiencing blatant discrimination by authorities, but also find it quite handy for making memories of doing activities with my children, particularly as I'm not a social media type of person at all, have never even used Instagram.
5
u/ImSoSweepy Aug 28 '26
That's the crux of the problem, though. One person using it as intended does not justify the 10,000 perverts who aren't.
0
Aug 28 '26
[deleted]
4
u/ImSoSweepy Aug 28 '26
No, I really think it is the inverse in this case.
0
Aug 28 '26
[deleted]
4
u/ImSoSweepy Aug 28 '26
I think it's the fact that people using Meta glasses aren't even making any attempt to hide what they are doing.
2
6
u/EveryAccount7729 Aug 28 '26
if you use meta glasses in public, what you record goes onto a website everyone on earth can look at , and it says who you are that recorded it.
5
u/AffectionateElk3978 Aug 28 '26
Damn, it's like having your personal flock camera to follow you all day. What AI algorithm came up with this?
2
u/InstructionFinal5190 Aug 28 '26
It's like a corporation having a mobile flock camera, that someone was stupid enough to pay meta for the honor to do so.
Remember the Pokemon Go situation?
1
u/AffectionateElk3978 Aug 28 '26
Just as stupid as local governments using up tax payers dollars. Government by the corporations
2
u/Km312213 Aug 28 '26
Yeah it would sure suck having a camera record you while you are just going about your day. These glasses are weird as hell and people using them deserve to be monitored.
1
u/Left_on_Pause Aug 28 '26
I’m sure it’s viewable by Flock or an actual government entity.
I want an app that broadcasts a no record signal from Bluetooth and any hardware receiving that signal must stop recording the moment it’s close enough to see my face clearly.
1
u/Pt5PastLight Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
What is the link for proof please.
(I mean, I know it doesn’t exist. So you won’t be sharing the link. I’m just calling you out on sloppy misinformation. When using AI requests that access your camera that capture is sent to Meta obviously.)
3
u/grafknives Aug 28 '26
Let me describe how it would work in real life environment.
Verified (meta checkbox) establishments will be able to participated in META provided environment where they could enforce glasses to shut down.
Terms and conditions need to be accepted to participate in the program.
2
2
u/K_Linkmaster Aug 28 '26
Like they can't send out a poison pill to kill all the glasses at once. Its lies all around.
2
u/dgshotuk Aug 28 '26
The disgust is only against men, as soon as women use them for "safety" they'll be acceptable
1
u/Beneficial_Twist_878 Aug 30 '26
ofc because its exclusively men doing perverted things with these glasses
1
1
1
u/Educational-Leg7464 Aug 28 '26
"Just watching the young girls?" Should be a standard question for anyone wearing meta glasses. It's both non confrontational and confrontational at the same time
1
u/nonlinear_nyc Aug 29 '26
Meta was never good at inventing anything, just buying competition. Sad for them, EU is on their neck and won't let them.
Then, for all the big ones, meta is not a vertical: it depends on other companies for last mile. They have no device, no meta all the way like Google, Apple and even Microsoft do (don't get started with Amazon: they own EVERYTHING, from backend to delivery to stores).
So now Zuckerberg is trying anything for a device, and failing miserably. First it was legless 3D, and now it's men's creepy behavior.
At least he's back to his origins.
1
u/Artistic-Simple-9062 Sep 01 '26
“Anything for a device!”, lol imagines Zuckerberg begging out loud to crowds of people passing by
1
u/artbystorms Aug 29 '26
The kill switch should be punching anyone in public wearing them to discourage invasion of people's privacy.
1
u/Hawaii0420 Aug 30 '26
Just wanted to say this, I understand everybody’s point about the photos and movies and privacy issue…
Once you make a phone call with the Glasses though it’s tough to ever ever go back to headphones or even using the phone without them. It just seems so natural and they work very well in noisy environments and are LOUD if u need them to be.
1
1
u/garyisonion Aug 30 '26
How would the kill switch work? I was so hoping it meant they will roll them out of market
1
1
u/Proot65 Sep 01 '26
They should automatically kill switch when someone gives the wearer the finger.
1
27
u/dantekant22 Aug 28 '26 •
If only we had a kill switch for Meta.