I think the pushback will be pretty insignificant simply based on the fact that compared to Google Glass, they really don't stand out as much.

Doesn't that make the privacy concerns that people previously had even more prominent?

Do you have an expectation of privacy in public?

I have an expectation that people I'm speaking with aren't filming me without making it clear that they're doing so. Anyone doing otherwise I consider a creep and would rather not interact with.

Do also note that people wear glasses in private settings as well as public.

I think you are very confused about what a reductio ad absurdum is. It is not a fallacy, it’s a perfectly valid form of argument (similar to a ‘proof by contradiction’ in maths), and it doesn’t seem to be what you mean here.

Thanks, I'll look into it and update my comment.

The glasses have a light on when recording. The light cannot be disabled.

Your can't draw over it with a marker? What about the microphones? Will this still be the case in the next generation or in glasses produced by other manufacturers?

No, if you cover the light, it will refuse to take photos or videos. Who cares about the next glasses from another manufacture? We are talking about the current Meta glasses that just came out.

I care and presumably other people with the same outlook care, that's why I was asking.

You're trying to assuage my concerns with the information about the light. That's Meta responding to these concerns and taking efforts to avoid upsetting anyone.

But once the market is proven then another set of glasses will be marketed as having the feature of silent recording. By that time the force of the market will be too great and my concerns will be laughed at and I'll be called a luddite and told I never should have had an expectation of privacy to begin with.

This is the embrace before the inevitable extinguish.

The only solution to your concerns are legislation, and that is not going to happen in America as everyone has a video camera in their pocket and the 1st amendment exists. Private establishments are free to make rules regarding the use of these on their grounds assuming that the user is not using them for a disability related service.

I'm aware of that of course. No one can turn the tide against the market. But why do they bother, then, with the whole show of making it only record with a light? You agree that that's just theatre to seem less invasive than they inevitably will be?

I'm not based in the US so hopefully some local laws will help me out a bit, but at the end of the day, the law is not my moral barometer. I will respect the rights of the users of these devices while also exercising my own rights, as much as I am able to, to treat them as social pariahs.

But aren't the lenses more obvious on these? Just looked at the Glass and I guess they are about as obvious as the lense on that but the glass stands out more for sure because of its design (which I loved).

These look like ordinary sunglasses while google glasses were akin to a dragonball z accessory.

IMO the pushback was against the perception that people wore them to signal that they had $1500 since they didn’t do that much and were fairly obviously futuristic on your face. I saw someone climbing in them and my impression was not that they were somehow relevant for the climbing..

The push back was largely about the creepiness of being potentially surveilled all the time. This is just the same

yeah it would be pretty fucked up if I was recorded all the time, like in every store. Or like walking through a neighborhood and half the doorbells call out as you pass to inform your that they're recording. Or if you do anything slightly embarassing in public and there is a teenager nearby.

We can accept the trade offs for some surveillance while still being critical of new trends. Or maybe you're ready to have a 24/7 livestream from your toilet?

The toilet came up constantly in discussions of Google Glass, as though the presence of a camera on your head would suddenly turn you into a raving lunatic who pops his head over bathroom stalls and peeks over the urinal dividers.

I'm not sure I saw that argument at the time and I'm not making it now either. I don't know what to do with this response.

This is my main concern. These lenses are much more obvious than the Google Lense cameras as well. I'd love to use some cool tech like this but I can absolutely see some people seeing the lenses and being confrontational and trying to act like you are purposefully filming them, or their kids... or something along those lines. Yes, it is legal to film in public but I'm not trying to have those sorts of confrontational interactions.

Unfortunately the lesson some people learned from google glass was ‘be sneakier.’ Hence the design of these.

I was not gonna spend $1500 for Google glasses, but $300 for a Rayban isn't bad.

My understanding was that the pushback was based on people's discomfort around other people wearing these things, hence the "glasshole" name being used.

These don't even have the (more interesting, IMO) part though - the HUD.

Glass was obviously an early experimental design with loads of shortcomings, but at least in concept, a personal HUD was fairly interesting. I didn't care about the camera and found it disappointing that it was the only part people seemed to focus on. Isn't this just the camera/mic bit without the cool part, tied to a Facebook/Meta account instead of a Google one?

I agree $1500 was a bit steep for something barely above prototype level, but this is basically an earbud/mic that allows me to take hands-free photos - something I do maybe a few times per year.