- 93comments
- 5comments
- 71comments
- 40comments
- 49comments
- 47comments
- 235comments
- 345comments
- 22comments
- 3comments
- 183comments
- 346comments
- 18comments
- 38comments
- 85comments
- 344comments
- 279comments
- 188comments
- 150comments
- 114comments
- 152comments
- 209comments
- 81comments
- 147comments
- 31comments
- 275comments
- 27comments
- 43comments
- 2comments
- 5comments
Great name
Yes, the name is absolutely a genius move.
I would bet my money that there's a dozen lawyers at work, right now, in Meta's HQ, to get a sense of what options they have to harass, shut down, or do something else to the creator of this app. And I would also bet that Zuck is furious about it.
At least one lawyer looking at it? Sure, maybe. But this is probably not even registering on Zuck's radar
You'd be surprised. They banned Christopher Wylie from Facebook. People routinely report their entire team (building some product for Facebook) getting their accounts banned
Zuckerberg takes things personally. It's his entire history
I can't claim to know more than you; but I think I know enough about corporate america and Meta and Zuck that the idea of multiple lawyers, instead of just one, is at least plausible.
He's extremely petty and fhin skinned. Remember the seat booster?
Somewhere deep in the central European woods, a lonely dev fights for his life, against a dead man switch. Accidentally, a NATO drone flattened his house into glass a week ago. Now, he evades drones, rabid lawyers, train accidents, Starlink honey traps, sudden internet blackouts of unknown origin, regular honey traps, poisoned whiskey, social media bans and dowvotes ...
... if you can find him, you can hire him, and restore privacy and sanity to your apps. he is ... the ZuckOff dev.-
I'm guessing it's not even aware of it. The billionaires all live in their own reality.
*knows when a pair of camera glasses are in the room
This is fantastic.
Does it beep louder as the BT signal strength changes and the camera comes closer?
Bring along a small Bluetooth speaker and call out pervs in public!
Wait, doesn't it beep for smartphone cameras too?
It says:
How is this guaranteed to be not spoofed?
Where does it say that is guaranteed? Nobody can guarantee that.
Anyone can get a $5 bluetooth-capable ESP32 and set its bluetooth mac to one in the range used by smart glasses. Not sure why you'd do that though.
The other direction is trickier. You'd have to modify the firmware of the smart glasses to set a different mac, or at least gain arbitrary code execution with hardware access. That's well beyond what the average smart glass user will do
And at that point, it'd be mostly about the heads-up display anyways. Somebody who is determined to record you without your knowledge has far easier paths available to them. Just get one of those lighters or ear-rings or car key fobs with built-in camera
Reading this inspired me that it would be nice if there were a do-not-film-me standard: your mobile phone sends out a do-not-film-me request with a (rotating) hash of your facial biometrics via Bluetooth. All cameras (glasses, phones, etc.) then blur your face in recordings.
Similarly, a venue could request a do-not-film-this-venue setting and make sure no photos are taken at a party.
These are social problems not technology problems.
We want a society that does not need these workarounds.
We also want a society that is less greedy but that will never happen.
Which won't happen as criminals will never want themselves filmed and they are the ones you want to film to make society better and protect yourself.
Haven't you got that the wrong way around?
If we have to come up with a technological solution to grant anonymity when people are filming, criminals can use it.
If we as a society don't go around filming everyone all the time, we don't need that technical solution available, so we can film the criminals when they are doing something criminal.
You can't trust humans to follow the rules. They break rules all the time. Look at the HN community.
Humans adapt and will always break the rules, but that’s not something that can be solved with tech. Think: prohibition vs public anti smoking campaigns/healthcare support/and then increasing prices
Indeed.
The tricky part is that social peer pressure requires a lack of anonymity - not just in terms of detecting whether people are recording without consent at the time - but also the posting of content online.
Naming and shaming requires names.
The lines blur between actively taking photos and passively recording for augmented reality, AI assistance, etc. People might not be aware that they record. This standard would also be useful to extend to robots. For example if you visit friends who have a roomba [1].
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/19/1065306/roomba-i...
that requires too much goodwill and effort from the makers of such devices. They know their audience wouldn't want that. They don't give a shit about what people being filmed think.
Culture/social pressures work better than purely technical solutions
Why do we need a standard for something that should socially be the norm?
Wasn't there a "standard" that phones in south kora had to make a shutter noise when you took a picture because they had such a huge problem with men doing up the skirt photos of strangers?
Not sure why you think social norms are positive. Negative amoral behaviors can become norms. I'd argue the west has tons of amoral behavior that is normalized.
Not sure about the noise, but Japan did something likr it with a constant light when the device was recording. I believe it was combatting the same kind of issues though.
This. Absolutely this.
Explains a lot about why people vote for racist and right wing parties.
Because some people would still smoke in restaurants and airplanes if left to their own devices.
Why do we need laws against stealing bikes?
(Yes, example chosen for its reputation for indifferent enforcement.)
Technical and legal norms are implementation of social norms. “obviously everybody knows that you are supposed to do it that way” doesnt hold up well at court, or during an argument about any decision that costs big bucks.
Police unions would love for cameras to standardize on that.
There was an article on HN that one city's police force, when there were protests going on, took to playing Disney songs from loudspeakers; so that any recording of their interactions would be impossible to publish on any significant internet platform (or at least, the audio would be muted, by IP protection filters).
That’s an admission of guilt by the police, right there. If you have nothing to hide… etc.
“We’ve got ‘em now!”. This’ll be police brutality’s great undoing.
Wouldn't that constitute a public performance of copyrighted material? The police themselves could be DMCAed. Haha
Not DMCA, but yes, that would definitely open them to a lawsuit for unlicensed performance.
Did the police have the appropriate license to play those disney songs in a public space?
I bet Disney's lawyers can squeeze a lot more money out of municipalities for playing the music publicly in the first place than they can out of random citizens who are uploading to Youtube.
Im guessing the intention wasn’t that Disney would actually sue them in court but just getting it blocked automatically in YouTube, etc
Wouldn't that be covered by fair use?
Nobody who loves Disney songs would listen to them while also hearing police officers shouting, etc.
You’re right. Tech companies will surprise us all and suddenly start obeying the DMCA to the letter instead of just taking the shortcut of “rights holders upload content, it’s fingerprinted, user content that matches fingerprint is taken down”. Then, we’ll link arms and sing kumbaya.
Just to note, you can keep the data on French servers as they are a Offshore/DMCA Ignore country.
There's no human to appeal to in social media platforms. It's automated, algorithmic enforcement; and when it's wrong (or someone exploits it to be wrong, like this), you're powerless to do anything. It means nothing if you're technically in the legal right: the platforms are risk-averse and don't care about your false positive.
Theoretically, yes, absolutely. Practically, no, they would be taken down by automatic filters and you'd have to be willing to face Disney's lawyers to try to get them reinstated.
This has never once prevented a DMCA notice from being issued, and I'm sure you can guess how easy it is to get a person at YouTube to review your appeal
Sounds like a swift way to be included in "Need constant observation" list. Or we can even build a special surveillance for such folks along with plausible Parallel construction scenario constantly refreshed.
Why not make filming opt-in rather than opt-out?
How do you opt out when someone rocks up to the restaurant you are in or the publoc restroom wearing these?
there was a black mirror episode on something similar IIRC
Not too dissimilar to the Black Mirror episode "White Christmas" where you can block other people in real life. Except in this case it's glasses and in Black Mirror retinal implants. We're getting there.
Amazing. But it won't work for long, they'll patch the BT beacons with some "privacy" mode :(
And even if not - could always make another device with the same company ID and flood everyone with false positives.
v2.0 ... auto-project two middle fingers at the recording camera, in place of the recorded subjects face.
Upvoted for the best lulz of the day.
cool solution to a problem that shouldnt even exist I'd say. how did it become ok to be recorded at all times without prior consent??
First they filmed the celebrities, then the politicians, then the cops, then came the ring cameras. It was a slow erosion over decades, the justification drifting from "they are a public figure" to "they are standing near me"
I never knew why the paparazzi could harass celebrities and a few decades later we are all being secretly filmed for a Meta perv database.
A major factor is that the companies pushing for this technology are spending significant resources into making sure your consent isn't relevant. From this article [1] about Meta and smart glasses:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/meta-facial-re... or https://archive.is/65Fze
Incrementally, apathetically and often to gleeful offerings of tinfoil hats to those who pointed out previous steps and extrapolated them forth.
Cool idea, but why not spend 5 minutes to tell Claude to generate something besides the default AI UI style for your app?
I was going to say: can't wait for EU to regulate this, but they already did!
Sorry to be that guy but:
Is such claudespeak it’s not even annoying it’s just funny at this point
Oh, the hypocrisy
I... don't know how I feel about this. I mean, the concept, sure, good idea. Is it reliable? Perhaps. But... I get a "buy merch" popup the moment I open the page, and there seems to be a pro option for what seems to be a very much LLM-aided app? ...IDK, rubs off a bit wrong IMO. Just my personal opinion.
I like the idea of this type of merch that normalizes anti big tech sentiment. But I personally would also opt for something more dramatic, possibly involving a guillotine...on the t shirt I mean
Except any "solution" that involves AI is actually a win for big tech.
I think this will go like this: - Resistance. People don't like being "secretly" filmed. - Most people will realise it does not affect their lives. - People will ignore it - New generation will accept as something normal to do. Everyone recording everyone.
Need permanent paint spray at protests for just hoodlums. Blast them red commie paints.
A better solution would be a miniaturized quadrf style device that could see radio sources and overlay them.
Unlike other commenters, I do not mind the ai-ness of this app. This is a quick solution to a problem that we should not have had in the first place.
pl_PL ( ｡ ♡ ‿ ♡ ｡ )
What is the difference betwen this and https://www.noglasshole.com/ ?
The live music image in their collage is hilarious: it's blurring the backs of people's heads, and presumably blurs the faces of the band, as how would it know the difference
Eta: and in their demo video there's a person walking by who's face doesn't get blurred lmao. Bang up job, Claude
wtf is this
the demo video really looks ai generated — several weird artifacts, but what bugs me the most is that at the end the alleged glasses-wearer goes through two men between whom clearly there is no space for a third person.
Good to know, now I need to find my flipper zero and build a small app to use the information gained.
we really need to regulate fast on those pervert glasses
You can only fight the future for so long.
Dunno why I remembered "The Quantum Thief" by Hannu Rajaniemi. Basically, you had fine-grained control over what others perceived of you. Your friends can see you completely, while strangers can only see a blur.
It was an amazing book.
So google can already figure out if you're being followed by an air tag, why can't they natively scan Bluetooth for smart glasses and do what zuckoff does without a third party app?
An airtag is one device that by its nature desperately wants to be seen.
...because they also are going to be selling smart glasses and don't want to trash a market they are about to join?
Been around for ages for Android as "Nearby Glasses" app
Not sure why you'd use this sketchy vibecoded proprietary app over the same thing that's open source and existed for a while
https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
I hope the Microsoft marketing dept is paying attention, because ZuckOff is amazing branding.
Instead of Copilot for Counter Spying, or Anti-Creeper.NET.
Good. Now what about fscking smartphones? There's 1000 times more of those, most with dual cameras and microphones.
I have "Hey Siri!" enthousiasts visiting soon. They can leave their iPhones in a nice Faraday cage at the entrance.