The camera is disabled when people try to do this. Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
The problem is the LED isn’t enabled currently when live streaming content to Instagram or Facebook. Most live streams can just be captured and recorded by someone else. This is a huge cap in privacy and safety even if the LED was fully functional without tampering.
Does everyone know when you're live streaming? Yes. A white LED on the front of the glasses lights up while you're streaming to let people around you know the camera is active.
Beginning with our second generation of glasses, the camera is automatically disabled if we detect that the capture LED has been blocked. No photos or videos can be taken until we detect that the light is unblocked.
Until it's hard enough people figure out how easy it is to fit a camera in a regular glass flame, and how much cheaper it is over paying Meta for the privilege.
Since the introduction of this safeguard, we’ve seen some people go beyond using tape to sophisticated efforts to modify or destroy the capture LED. We are continuously improving our ability to detect tampering, and now we’re updating the glasses to disable the camera if they detect the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed. No other kind of camera has done this and we’re proud to lead the industry forward.
Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
Seeing these reactionary Reddit-like takes on HN sucks. No, it's not easy for the average person to disable the camera on these glasses. They do continuously make it harder to do so. At this point anyone interested in spy glasses is better off buying one of the many other glasses with cameras in it.
Alternatively, sounds like you're a user of the glasses and don't like what these comments might reflect on you if more people agree with them?
Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
What exactly is your threat model? "It is possible to work around" every single security control that has ever existed. Saying it "is possible" to work around a control is an utterly meaningless statement. At what budget? With what skill level? With what frequency and likelihood?
If the intent is to deter the typical weirdos that would try to disable the blinking light, then yes, their mitigations have been extraordinarily effective and most of these weirdos now just buy other cheaper and more discreet camera glasses.
I was, however had, quite surprised when I saw them used by "auditors" (here, I refer to e. g. "auditors" on youtube specifically). Now this brought a problem for me, because auditors on the one hand, bring interesting encounters, even if they (or some of them) meta-jabait and provoke (again, only some of them at best, in many cases they don't really). But when they use spy glasses to serve greedy mega-corporations, this totally shifts the whole "audit" instantly, because then they also support evil Facebook, Google or what not. And that kind of runs counter to the whole audit-idea. So far I only saw one use the facebook spy glasses, but I wonder whether he even gave any thought to this. I understand why he uses spy glasses, but I don't understand why he does it to benefit Facebook. That IMO puts the whole idea behind audits instantly in a wrong angle. I haven't seen others use it, so perhaps it just was one or few, but they don't seem to really think anymore. Some audit channels were also censored by Google in the last weeks, others were not, but this just amplifies the whole problem here. Imagine if the spy glasses were made by Google. And the auditors depend on Google money. It's really strange. The whole setup does not work well. I understand that they want to make money, but why would I want to support facebook-agents using spy glasses at all? That makes no sense, so I decided when an audit-channel uses facebook spy glasses or anyone else's corporations spy-glasses, I won't watch anything from there. Same with AI content - anyone using AI content I instantly add to a perma-ban list. I recently saw more and more people use AI slop images and AI filters. This is soooooo horrible. These people don't seem to understand that AI slop kills interest. Yet some swear by it - it is fascinating. Those who use AI slop, can not be convinced that using AI slop is detrimental. They have been converted into AI skynet servants.
In the novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (great read, very pertinent as well for the discussion of AGI and what is consciousness), an "abglanz" is like a digital identity shield that hides a person's face behind a shifting weird pattern of colours. I wonder how far off we are from everyone just retreating into higher privacy settings and opt out.
There's a bright blinking light on my face telling them they're being recorded - and they have their phones out and are recording anyways! There are a lot of assumptions baked into your comment.
What's with HN becoming so saturated with snarky cynical one line quips? I don't think I've ever seen a worse comment section.
Its not a battle you are going to win, This is pretty much the state of things but everyone old enough remembers when the same was said about camera phones, Drones and Uber being unsafe. Eventually usage means these comments will fall and then everyone will forget as it becomes normal.
Why not? Something that can do facial recognition + location tracking + keep and instantly transmit related digital records to a third party should be considered an invasion of privacy even if in public.
I think the panic around smart glasses cameras is so strange, it's SO much easier to be a creep with a phone recording. You'll see it all the time if you're paying attention. Everyone is already on their phones anyhow, and especially with "creep shots" your head is a massive giveaway; with a smart phones, not so much, it can be placed anywhere. What practically could someone record without their knowledge that isn't already widely and more easily available through a smartphone? I just don't get it.
I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone. Feels like everyone is focusing on the wrong thing, given that level of privacy has already been eradicated and no one is going to give up their phones.
There is no "panic". It is more a realization that it is becoming difficult to notice recording devices.
I assume the most problematic scenarios are private. Private meetings. Private conversations. Private encounters of every kind in general. Environment in which ordinary people used to have good enough confidence that, unless they see a phone or a camera, they are not being recorded. It no longer is that simple.
Confirming, at least to some extent, that there is no recording going on may now require confronting the other person. And asking them to remove their glasses or hand them over for inspection might be considered rude.
As a result, I think that it might make people more suspicious and less trusting, especially when meeting new people for the first time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49785429
From https://about.fb.com/news/2026/07/metas-ai-glasses-your-ques...
The problem is the LED isn’t enabled currently when live streaming content to Instagram or Facebook. Most live streams can just be captured and recorded by someone else. This is a huge cap in privacy and safety even if the LED was fully functional without tampering.
That's a lie.
https://actionstreamer.com/blog/how-to-live-stream-on-meta-r...
Basic modification: Some tape over the led.
Until it's hard enough people figure out how easy it is to fit a camera in a regular glass flame, and how much cheaper it is over paying Meta for the privilege.
cap -> gap
The LED is active when you are using the camera. It's hardwired.
Or someone can just turn off updates and never download the patch.
It's a meta product. Safe to assume that sooner or later it will be unusable unless you install the latest update so it can continue phoning home.
Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
Seeing these reactionary Reddit-like takes on HN sucks. No, it's not easy for the average person to disable the camera on these glasses. They do continuously make it harder to do so. At this point anyone interested in spy glasses is better off buying one of the many other glasses with cameras in it.
People would generally oppose all such devices if they had a real picture of what's going on.
Alternatively, sounds like you're a user of the glasses and don't like what these comments might reflect on you if more people agree with them?
Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
Yes, your comment was incorrect.
What exactly is your threat model? "It is possible to work around" every single security control that has ever existed. Saying it "is possible" to work around a control is an utterly meaningless statement. At what budget? With what skill level? With what frequency and likelihood?
If the intent is to deter the typical weirdos that would try to disable the blinking light, then yes, their mitigations have been extraordinarily effective and most of these weirdos now just buy other cheaper and more discreet camera glasses.
I think you're asking too much of a publication to do this kind of investigative reporting.
Their job is to scan the app store for any app that is anti-tech and has at least 1k downloads and write an article about how there's huge backlash.
This is Wired, not some random substack. What a lazy, cynical comment.
The Spy Glasses need to be abolished everywhere.
I was, however had, quite surprised when I saw them used by "auditors" (here, I refer to e. g. "auditors" on youtube specifically). Now this brought a problem for me, because auditors on the one hand, bring interesting encounters, even if they (or some of them) meta-jabait and provoke (again, only some of them at best, in many cases they don't really). But when they use spy glasses to serve greedy mega-corporations, this totally shifts the whole "audit" instantly, because then they also support evil Facebook, Google or what not. And that kind of runs counter to the whole audit-idea. So far I only saw one use the facebook spy glasses, but I wonder whether he even gave any thought to this. I understand why he uses spy glasses, but I don't understand why he does it to benefit Facebook. That IMO puts the whole idea behind audits instantly in a wrong angle. I haven't seen others use it, so perhaps it just was one or few, but they don't seem to really think anymore. Some audit channels were also censored by Google in the last weeks, others were not, but this just amplifies the whole problem here. Imagine if the spy glasses were made by Google. And the auditors depend on Google money. It's really strange. The whole setup does not work well. I understand that they want to make money, but why would I want to support facebook-agents using spy glasses at all? That makes no sense, so I decided when an audit-channel uses facebook spy glasses or anyone else's corporations spy-glasses, I won't watch anything from there. Same with AI content - anyone using AI content I instantly add to a perma-ban list. I recently saw more and more people use AI slop images and AI filters. This is soooooo horrible. These people don't seem to understand that AI slop kills interest. Yet some swear by it - it is fascinating. Those who use AI slop, can not be convinced that using AI slop is detrimental. They have been converted into AI skynet servants.
It only works while the glasses are in pairing mode. This is useless.
I'm not sure why you think that, bluetooth devices often broadcast their presence even when not in pairing mode
it's even on the site
isn't this security flaw ????
Probably, it's how bluetooth is used to track devices/people too.
“Beacons” are a highly marketed socially acceptable thing in the advertising industry that has permeated the insides of most buildings.
Standing too long in one aisle lets them know where you like to browse in the grocery store.
When they first rolled these out in the US at least a decade ago I used to get notifications all the time.
Stuff like “Near Well’s Fargo? Balance your checkbook.” As notifications.
Nah. That's standard BLE protocol.
BLE is actually pretty secure, but it does advertise, and some folks take advantage of that.
it's certainly a good reason to not carry a bluetooth device if you're trying to do something in secret
Existing, probably less sketchy app: https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses (as linked in the other thread)
This.
Why do any of the device's network connections (WiFi/BT/etc) need to be on? What's to stop someone recording and uploading later?
there's no button on the glasses to turn the Bluetooth on or off, so they're basically always connecting as long as they are powered.
In the novel "The Mountain in the Sea" (great read, very pertinent as well for the discussion of AGI and what is consciousness), an "abglanz" is like a digital identity shield that hides a person's face behind a shifting weird pattern of colours. I wonder how far off we are from everyone just retreating into higher privacy settings and opt out.
Zucker no zucking, Zucker no zucking, Zucker no zucking! We did it, we stopped Zucker!
These glasses are amazing for capturing memories on vacations, way nicer than using my phone camera.
How convenient, so to hell with the privacy of everyone around you then.
There's a bright blinking light on my face telling them they're being recorded - and they have their phones out and are recording anyways! There are a lot of assumptions baked into your comment.
What's with HN becoming so saturated with snarky cynical one line quips? I don't think I've ever seen a worse comment section.
Its not a battle you are going to win, This is pretty much the state of things but everyone old enough remembers when the same was said about camera phones, Drones and Uber being unsafe. Eventually usage means these comments will fall and then everyone will forget as it becomes normal.
You expect privacy in public?
Why not? Something that can do facial recognition + location tracking + keep and instantly transmit related digital records to a third party should be considered an invasion of privacy even if in public.
Every phone on the planet does this by default today. I don't see the delta between these glasses and someone taking a picture with their Pixel.
I think the panic around smart glasses cameras is so strange, it's SO much easier to be a creep with a phone recording. You'll see it all the time if you're paying attention. Everyone is already on their phones anyhow, and especially with "creep shots" your head is a massive giveaway; with a smart phones, not so much, it can be placed anywhere. What practically could someone record without their knowledge that isn't already widely and more easily available through a smartphone? I just don't get it.
I do understand recording maybe during a sexual act or something without knowledge, but even that is probably just as easy with a phone. Feels like everyone is focusing on the wrong thing, given that level of privacy has already been eradicated and no one is going to give up their phones.
Your phone has to be out of your pocket and raised up to record me, which I can notice.
You can't notice a bright blinking light on someone's face?
It is less noticeable in person than a phone out and pointed at you yes. And I would react similarly.
There is no "panic". It is more a realization that it is becoming difficult to notice recording devices.
I assume the most problematic scenarios are private. Private meetings. Private conversations. Private encounters of every kind in general. Environment in which ordinary people used to have good enough confidence that, unless they see a phone or a camera, they are not being recorded. It no longer is that simple.
Confirming, at least to some extent, that there is no recording going on may now require confronting the other person. And asking them to remove their glasses or hand them over for inspection might be considered rude.
As a result, I think that it might make people more suspicious and less trusting, especially when meeting new people for the first time.
Does someone want to make this into a product and selling to people?