Facebook Debuts $299 'Ray-Ban Stories' Smart Glasses

[4jasontv]

It's absolutely happened, especially with Google Glass -- because those were initially sold to developers, and the general public couldn't yet buy them. That created a lot of paranoia around them, since they weren't a product most people could really try out themselves and see what they really did and didn't do.

A private bar or club can ban whatever they like, just like some enforce arbitrary dress codes (like no tennis shoes). But eventually, I think the idea of glasses with cameras integrated will become mainstream enough that people stop treating it like a special situation. Every smartphone on the planet can do the same stuff and people always have them in hand in these establishments.

There is a perceived difference between the camera on a phone and that on glasses. You have to aim the phone at someone to record them, and that produces a behavior that can be associated with recording. It's not foolproof however and I have seen plenty of fights break out because someone who was texting was perceived to be taking a picture or doing a video recording.

I don't see people warming up to the idea of potential recording. LED signals don't work since they will be bypassed. I remember when all camera phones had to make a shutter sound when a photo was taken. These days you don't know so you have to assume that if a lens is aimed at you then it's recording. That's going to be a source of tension for many people.

If we had legal electronics jammers that disabled all electronic devices within a defined radius then individuals would likely be more comfortable with the tech, unless of course, you had a pacemaker. This is fundamental weapons development. Make no mistake, stealth cameras are weapons.

I think an appropriate response would be to assume all Ray-Ban glasses are Facebook spyware and to treat anyone wearing any Ray-Ban merchandise as being a recording device. Kill the tech by making their brand crumble. Let all other eyewear manufactures know that this tech will end their company.

 

[SFjohn]

So easy to cover that led showing you are recording. A dab of black paint, or electrical tape. 3D videos of women’s and men’s gym rooms for sale. Although could come in handy for monitoring police for unjustified use of force…

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

This is the future. I don’t know if I like it but AR is going to be big.

I had a horrible case of vertigo years ago from snorkeling. I recently had a test to see how bad my vertigo was. The doc said that a lot of people actually have 'real' vertigo, and many more have 'situational vertigo', and it's only when they are 'tested' by something that they find out. Some people, they said, have long term side effects to both types of vertigo. Mine lasts a few hours. Some people, their side effects last days, weeks, months. Yikes!

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Sure, but why let that get in way of a bit of fun?

Thank you sir, may I have another?

 

[MrTangent]

As long as I can obscure the light, this looks like a valid tool to surreptitiously record people that are troublemakers so that I can have a record of the potentially violent interactions with them… while they speak freely, thinking they’re not being recorded (i.e., them self censoring).

Recording the police springs to mind.

 

[Dremmel]

I hate them already. Grim.

 

[6787872]

if i see someone with these, i would probably automatically assume they are a douchebag.

 

[Abazigal]

If they had an Apple logo on them, everybody on here would be singing their praises to the heavens.

Precisely because it's Apple, and that makes all the difference in implementation between them, and everyone else.

 

[Apple of my eye]

Glass holes, round 2....great

 

[topmounter]

Straight from Instagram minute 1
View attachment 1828815

LOL, I deleted my Facebook account before my first child was born. The writing was on the wall, but that was back when you would still get excoriated for criticizing Facebook.

 

[RockinDev]

Now they can spy on you and anyone you look at. Solid work Facebook.

 

[MrTangent]

if i see someone with these, i would probably automatically assume they are a douchebag.

Guess everyone wearing the iconic Wayfarer design is a douchebag, huh? Because if you are not super close to see the lenses they look identical to arguably the most iconic sunglasses of all time.

 

[DotCom2]

Guess everyone wearing the iconic Wayfarer design is a douchebag, huh? Because if you are not super close to see the lenses they look identical to arguably the most iconic sunglasses of all time.

And you don’t think they did that on purpose? 🙃

 

[carrrrrlos]

is there really an audience out there that will buy a pair of those because zuckerberg wears them?

 

[MrTangent]

And you don’t think they did that on purpose? 🙃

I do. It’s a fantastic design (Wayfarers). Tbh, I wouldn’t wear this as Facebook can’t be trusted, but I’m impressed with the aesthetic and ability to “hide” the electronic-ness. Ray-Ban should be applauded.

This is miles ahead of Google’s poorly rendered version; at least from the perspective that wearable tech should be seamlessly invisible, effectively.

 

[cmaier]

So easy to cover that led showing you are recording. A dab of black paint, or electrical tape. 3D videos of women’s and men’s gym rooms for sale. Although could come in handy for monitoring police for unjustified use of force…

But didn’t you hear - according to the Wall Street journal if you cover the light (or, say, disable it mechanically), you are violating Facebook’s terms of service! Nobody would ever do such a thing, right?!?!

/s

 

[skitidetdu]

Didn’t they learn from the last invasion of privacy spy glasses?

And sadly they grabbed the desirable Rayban brand instead of Apple.

Ray ban is too obvious of a choice. Apple, if they enter this marked at all, should team up with Tom Ford if they don’t go on their own.

 

[MacGekko]

It's good they look like Ray-Bans because otherwise people would stop hanging out with people that wear spyglasses. These are spyglasses incognito. Good job, Facebook!

Hoping people wake up and make this a total flop.

The only way to achieve more privacy is to invent it, if you can invent an effective device that you might wear on your collar, a necklace, anything that could blur any digital camera that attempts to record or snap a photograph of you.

If you can invent this, you will make millions, there are devices out there but they are not practical right now, the surveillance state is only going to expand, if we want back some privacy, we will have to invent that future.

 

[MacGekko]

If they had an Apple logo on them, everybody on here would be singing their praises to the heavens.

Nah, for some mild entertainment and laughter, follow the September 14th Apple event live thread, every Apple hypocritical and BS hyped statement is parsed left and right over here, I never fail to read a few pages of that annual thread, there are lots of people here that are not Jon Gruber type Apple sycophants.

 

[MacGekko]

But didn’t you hear - according to the Wall Street journal if you cover the light (or, say, disable it mechanically), you are violating Facebook’s terms of service! Nobody would ever do such a thing, right?!?!

/s

Amazon has a TOS with their Ring device, supposedly you are not supposed to film your neighbor's front lawn and house, maybe I have that wrong but I'm fairly certain those are the so called rules, nobody follows that, you can't walk on your front lawn without being filmed, well at least we still have the power to plan evergreens.

 

[groove-agent]

A perfect product by a company that specializes in violating people’s privacy.

 

[MacGekko]

I would have you thrown out of any privately owned shared space and I would probably encourage people to report your suspicious behavior until the cops ask you to not wear them in public. Of course, you could still do so, but eventually, to be safe they could take the camera down to the station and hold it until they have someone qualified to review it.

Because it's not just good enough that you feel comfortable wearing them. Everyone around needs to feel comfortable.

That would never work, the rule is that you have no expectation of privacy in public, fine, but the other rule is that if Dateline NBC films you in the background, they have to blur your face if you don't sign a waiver, why, because they are making money off the tv show, if you make money, you can't just use randoms in your video or something like a magazine ad.

I know this is a longshot but maybe the laws will catch up to the digital age in which we live, here is my thought, Facebook makes money off of every photograph on their site, it might be a micropenny, but every picture that someone uploads of you without your permission, technically shouldn't they have to blur you out in the same way Dateline NBC has to, this should apply to any website or app, heck all websites make some money for someone.

Jaron Lanier, in one of his books he proposes micropayments for every use of your data, every photograph taken of you and uploaded to FB/Instagram whatever, without your permission, every instance your name pops up in a google search, if a traffic camera records your license plate, that gets you something, I don't know if this ever will happen or what it would take to spark this change, but it makes sense to me.

 

[4jasontv]

That would never work, the rule is that you have no expectation of privacy in public, fine, but the other rule is that if Dateline NBC films you in the background, they have to blur your face if you don't sign a waiver, why, because they are making money off the tv show, if you make money, you can't just use randoms in your video or something like a magazine ad.

I know this is a longshot but maybe the laws will catch up to the digital age in which we live, here is my thought, Facebook makes money off of every photograph on their site, it might be a micropenny, but every picture that someone uploads of you without your permission, technically shouldn't they have to blur your out in the same way Dateline NBC has to, this should apply to any website or app, heck all websites make some money for someone.

Jaron Lanier, in one of his books he proposes micropayments for every use of your data, every photograph taken of you, every instance your name pops up in a google search, if a traffic camera records your license plate, that gets you something, I don't know if this ever will happen or what it would take to spark this change, but it makes sense to me.

I’m all for it, but every person gets to set the value of their data and they can change it whenever they want. If you don’t get my permission I can set it after the fact… for whatever I feel is fair.

 

[MacGekko]

Someone need to design a device that jam it.

They are out there in a few different forms, there is an actual kickstarter set of sunglasses that obscures your face from digital cameras, but they are not that practical, not ready for primetime, it seems likely that this will get perfected so there could be hope.

 

[MacGekko]

I’m all for it, but every person gets to set the value of their data and they can change it whenever they want. If you don’t get my permission I can set it after the fact… for whatever I feel is fair.

Hey I'm all for any type of variation on this concept, just think if this law was enacted tomorrow, what would that do to Facebook's profits, I guess depending on how much it cut into their bottom line, they might have to charge a subscription, that is the argument with Google, yeah they mine all of our data but we get to use a free search engine, problem is they are the only game in town, yeah you have Bing but they do the same damn thing with your data, duckduckgo is noble but I don't like their search results, so I have to use Google.