In January, the New York Police Department’s counterterrorism unit sent out a memo warning police officers about a new potential “security and counterintelligence” threat: Ray-Ban Meta glasses.

The memo directed officers to “conduct thorough inspections of all eyewear permitted within inmate cells” and cautioned that people who have been arrested could use these glasses, equipped with small cameras and microphones, to record inside police facilities. The memo cited two examples of such videos posted on social media.

“The ability to covertly record inside a law enforcement or detention facility, could result in a security risk if proprietary information about cell layouts, camera placements, or officer patrol/site protection routines are released,” the memo read.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 209 points 1 month ago (5 children)

But I thought the surveillance state was good for us? Why, do the police have something to hide?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    There are a great many cases where people have used tech to catch police in a lie, and naturally the police charge them with serious felonies for it. This goes back decades, and in shitoly jurisdictions is just in your face corruption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 142 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 81 points 1 month ago

    Police have things to hide??

    /s

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Remember when body cams were meant to protect the police from accused wrongdoing?

    Now anytime a body cam is not worn or activated it means the cops are planning to or are actively engaging in hurting someone.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 43 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Nothing to hide - nothing to fear, right officer?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    I've said it before, but if these things weren't hooked up to a corporate cloud they would be great for sousveillance of the police and other authorities.

    There're some out there from other manufacturers that have open source firmware, unfortunately they aren't cheap.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    Unfortunately, using ethical versions will still contribute to the normalization of the non-ethical options, because people won't know the difference at a glance (or care).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 34 points 1 month ago

    One of the few things they’d be good for

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    “The ability to covertly record inside a law enforcement or detention facility, could result in a security risk if proprietary information about cell layouts, camera placements, or officer patrol/site protection routines are released,” the memo read.

    what a load of absolute shit. the devices could open them up to the legal consequences of their illegal actions and abuse.

    shame meta is focused on equipping the perverts and creeps instead of the blind and exposing corruption and abuse.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Any inmate leaving the facility could describe all of that without glasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    think about all the heinous shit cameras have captured in the last 50 years. now imagine all the heinous shit that has gone unpunished because it wasn't documented for a moment.

    Which would you rather have in a prison experience - your own pov documented, or the word of a bunch of cops/guards?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 1 month ago

    Huh, finally a use for Meta smart glasses I can get behind.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago

    Well well well how the turntables

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That story reads exactly how I would draft a Meta PR campaign to diffuse opposition to those surveillance glasses.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 23 points 1 month ago

    Don’t worry, The Zuck will just add a feature to automatically blur cops and ICE agents

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    That’s why they’re worried about them??…. That’s a huge ass obvious red flag if we’ve ever seen one

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    Honestly a valid concern for anybody

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    META being used for good? IDK, sounds far fetched...

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago

    For recording in cells, the glasses would be caught by the regular scanners used at various security boundaries including upon entry to custody, at least every time I've been detained. Is that not normal in the US?

    I mean, critical support to Meta I guess. They finally figured out a real use case for their glasses. Albeit a very limited one because there's already hidden cameras people can wear on their body, all of which are easily detectable when they search you before chucking you into a cell.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (11 children)
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    For older users, I quite literally laughed out loud

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 1 month ago

    So it's okay for crooked fuckers to use flock cameras to stalk women but it's not ok for us to record you using smart glasses?

    How about a compromise? You shove the cameras up your ass, and we also get rid of the perv glasses because fuck that.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago

    "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." Isn't that the mantra of the police and secret services everywhere when they demand more intrusive snooping rights?

    So what do they do wrong that they suddenly have something to hide?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    If that's what it takes to get regulation for them I suppose.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Who would have thought there might be unintended uses of new technology? Just completely shocking.

    Now just need to wait 2 years for the Chinese knockoff brands for $39.99 that can run open source software and we'll all be Snowden.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    "secretly". They aren't exactly subtle.

  • source
  • Oh, no. That's terrible. Nobody should ever be recording the police........ It might catch them breaking a law or two /s

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Nice try, Meta!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago*

    Oh no, that would be going tooo Farr...

    Dead ass I wish the worse for many in power.

  • source
  • Boo hoo, go cry about it, ACAB

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›