Workers report watching Ray-Ban Meta-shot footage of people using the bathroom

Comments

Comment by ChrisArchitect 23 hours ago

[dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130

Comment by autoexec 23 hours ago

"using the bathroom" will be the least of what they're watching people do. Anyone wearing these glasses (or similar) should know that all of the audio/video picked up by the glasses will be watched and analyzed by others, likely by AI as well. Just like the entire point of facebook is to spy on people and profit from that data, the entire point of these devices is to spy on people in ways that the facebook app doesn't/can't and profit from that data.

Comment by staplers 22 hours ago

Sadly, "using the bathroom" will cause a more immediate visceral reaction for most people than "maliciously manipulating your entire life via ad networks and media".

Comment by hrimfaxi 19 hours ago

My first thought was of people who may have been wearing them while entering passwords or viewing sensitive information.

Comment by dylan604 22 hours ago

Do we really care what it is that will cause the visceral reaction? If I said it might reveal ways/means or private IP or any of a million other examples, few would really care as not everyone is involved in that. However, everyone goes to the bathroom.

Comment by munk-a 21 hours ago

I care a little bit - I think it's genuinely disappointing that your privacy can be so thoroughly compromised by interesting uses of metadata... but I also won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It'd be great is people truly understood the dangerous of invasive monitoring outside their physical forms (a, imo, relatively minor privacy to have compromised compared to your behavior) - but if it gets folks riled up I'm all for it.

Comment by simmerup 23 hours ago

And now realise the same is true for your robot vacuum, car camera, doorbell camera, etc etc

We consumers have no protection against big tech

Comment by boomskats 22 hours ago

Speak for yourself, I rooted my vacuum the day I bought it

Comment by MisterTea 1 hour ago

My vacuum is so dumb that I have to push it around.

Comment by BLKNSLVR 16 hours ago

And Meta employees have re-watched the footage of you performing that act a number of times.

Comment by Semaphor 22 hours ago

Sure you do. All of those are available in local versions without Internet.

Youjust need to care enough, be able to afford them (while my vacuum has no camera, it requires the cloud, but it was significantly cheaper than a local or hackable one), and have the ability to self host something like home assistant.

Comment by simmerup 20 hours ago

How about we just enforce minimum privacy standards on big tech instead?

Sure you can root all your own hardware but you can’t stop the fact that your walk down the street is documented by Amazon and Google front door bells

There is no opt out of this surveillance if you live in modern society

Comment by whilenot-dev 20 hours ago

> if you live in modern society

Quite an if you got there... pointing security or doorbell cameras to public spaces isn't legal where I live.

Comment by AlecSchueler 10 hours ago

It isn't legal where I live either, but about half the doors on my street have them anyway.

Comment by zombot 7 hours ago

The law should require it to be opt-in, ffs.

Comment by Gigachad 19 hours ago

And what are you doing about everyone elses amazon cameras that are watching you wherever you go, all uploaded to the cloud and processed by AI.

Comment by Semaphor 15 hours ago

That does requires laws. We have those here.

Comment by pseudocomposer 22 hours ago

We definitely don’t have any hard boundaries baked into this tech preventing big tech from (ab)using our data this way. But are there specific companies you think are doing this? I think with Meta products, it’s been rather obvious for a long time. But I’ve had a Nest doorbell camera and thermostats for years, and first iRobot and now Roborock vacuums, and they don’t really seem so suspect.

Comment by autoexec 21 hours ago

You should assume that Google is collecting every scrap of data they can from nest products and that your data will (or could) be handed over to police and the state with or without warrants and with zero notice to you. There were concerns raised with irobot devices selling the floorplans of your home (https://gizmodo.com/roombas-next-big-step-is-selling-maps-of...) and now its owned by China (Picea) so who knows what they're doing. Roborock is also a Chinese company who appears to have been under investigation in Korea for data leaks (https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2025-03-05/busines...).

At this point I'd consider anything not locally hosted (and certainly anything owned by Google, Amazon, or facebook) to be highly suspect.

Comment by idiotsecant 19 hours ago

Not your compute, not your data.

Comment by simmerup 20 hours ago

Amazon literally just put out a superbowl ad of them using their (your?) front door cam feeds to find people.

They are all dipping into our data for their ends, Meta is just particularly sloppy/honest about it

Comment by anonym29 21 hours ago

>We consumers have no protection against big tech

Stop buying it. You are not a robot that is forced to purchase a video doorbell or a robotic vacuum cleaner or a smart thermostat.

You have free will. If you do not like a commercially available product, don't buy it, don't use it. It's that simple.

Comment by autoexec 21 hours ago

> Stop buying it

That's my policy, but there's a sucker born every minute and they are buying these products so anytime you are in or near their homes or anywhere a microphone or camera can see you (even one mounted on some idiot's head) you're at risk. Even worse, both people and corporations typically don't disclose their use of those devices when you enter their homes/businesses either.

Comment by simmerup 20 hours ago

How about we just enforce minimum privacy standards on big tech instead?

Sure you can just not buy the thing.

But can’t stop the fact that your wall down the street is documented by Amazon and Google front door bells

There is no opt out of this surveillance if you live in modern society

Comment by jasonlotito 21 hours ago

I think it's a reasonable ask that when buying a product, it has reasonable levels of safety, security, and privacy. Especially with products that might change over time because of software updates.

Yes, there are ToS, but it's fine for us as a society to say that consumers deserve more protection against big tech so we aren't a TOS update away from having everything shared or be used for something that wasn't promoted.

> You have free will. If you do not like a commercially available product, don't buy it, don't use it.

Caveat emptor. But lemon laws exist, too.

And, a commercially available product now might not be the same a year from now.

Comment by munk-a 21 hours ago

There's compelling reasons for all sorts of home devices to be connected to the internet[1] but the rub is that ToS flexibility and software updates make this a backdoor waiting to happen. I feel like our legal system has significantly failed us by not empowering the consume to say "I accept your device with a wifi antenna for the purposes of updating and I reject any exfiltration of personal data from it to your servers". You can have such a contract written - but this is really a place where something like a consumer advocacy board should step in and make sure those rights and sanely guaranteed.

1. It'd be great to ease the method for updating, it'd be nice to be able to easily monitor the device especially if it could become active in some manner while you're absent (I don't want the stove turning on to broil right after I leave on a three month vacation)

Comment by autoexec 20 hours ago

> I feel like our legal system has significantly failed us by not empowering the consume to say "I accept your device with a wifi antenna for the purposes of updating and I reject any exfiltration of personal data from it to your servers".

Worse it's allowed for them to remote into your device and disable features that you bought the device to use, by paywalling them off behind a subscription service that didn't exist when you brought the product home or just them entirely. To me that's no different than theft. It doesn't matter if it's amazon logging into you kindle overnight and removing books you already paid for from your virtual bookshelf, or Sony pushing an update to remove the option to use linux on your PS3, or BMW deciding that you should have to pay them every month just to use the heated seats option you already paid for when you bought your car.

If I, as an individual, sold you something than broke into your house to steal it or break it or demand ransom to get parts back that would be a crime, but companies get away with it somehow. What Google, Facebook, and Amazon do are basically just stalking.

Comment by anonym29 21 hours ago

Just to clarify, I don't mean what I said in a manner hostile to consumers, I mean what I said in a manner hostile to abusive corporations. Let them either adapt to market demand for better products (which we demonstrate by not continuing to buy their current garbage), or let them (the corporations) starve and die if they refuse to.

Stop feeding the parasites.

Comment by indubioprorubik 22 hours ago

At least the vacuum does not try to start a civil war for add impressions..

Comment by TheOtherHobbes 19 hours ago

Yet.

Comment by _carbyau_ 19 hours ago

Obligatory Valetudo reference. Replace the robovac firmware so it doesn't do cloud.

https://valetudo.cloud/

Can't help with the rest unfortunately.

Comment by chaostheory 20 hours ago

> We consumers have no protection against big tech

I like to call big tech, “Little Sister” since governments are “Big Brother”

Comment by TheOtherHobbes 19 hours ago

They're both Big Brother.

And they both charge an annual subscription.

Comment by autoexec 11 hours ago

I recommend switching to "Creepy Uncle"

Comment by scubadude 20 hours ago

Don't buy the shit. You don't need a smart doorbell or robot vacuum at a minimum.

Comment by SoftTalker 22 hours ago

Don't use it.

Comment by expedition32 21 hours ago

Great if I wear sunglasses at the public pool people think I'm a nonce filming kids.

Comment by john_strinlai 21 hours ago

>nonce

today i learned this word has a definition outside of cryptography. it appears to be UK slang for pedophile.

Comment by sieabahlpark 19 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by Xiol 21 hours ago

Sunglasses, no.

Meta RayBans, deservedly.

Comment by iso-logi 20 hours ago

The problem is, they are becoming normalized very very quickly.

Take a walk down whatever area has the best night life near you and you will see tons of people wearing meta glasses. It's so common.

Comment by malfist 19 hours ago

I don't know where you live but I've literally never seen one outside a display in best buy

Comment by idiotsecant 19 hours ago

I have seen zero people wearing them that were not terminal omegadork weirdos. If anything, these people are providing a service of self-identifying.

Comment by paxys 22 hours ago

How many times will the same report be regurgitated and reposted? There is nothing added here that the original source didn't cover already (https://www.svd.se/a/K8nrV4/metas-ai-smart-glasses-and-data-...). Read that instead of the derivative blogspam.

Comment by paulbgd 18 hours ago

I honestly prefer the ars article here just because there's no onscroll fancy animation, just an actual textual description of what's being reported.

Comment by miltonlost 22 hours ago

Can that original source be reposted on HN within a short timespan or will it be deleted/comments moved? How then would this report gain more traction if only allowed once?

Comment by gus_massa 21 hours ago

From a comment by ChrisArchitect somewhere in this thread:

> [dupe] Discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130 .

More info: 1439 points | 6 days ago | 838 comments

Comment by themafia 19 hours ago

When people are done being disgusted by it.

It would probably help if Meta admitted it did wrong and wasn't fighting it in court.

Comment by winddude 22 hours ago

Yea, but not a bad reminder to ridicule people who wear them, and if possible destroy on site.

Comment by m4rtink 21 hours ago

Facebook at it again - creating the worst possible image in society of a potentially useful technology by their carelessness and greed.

Comment by ryandrake 23 hours ago

Privacy-wise, isn't this completely on-brand and expected from Meta? Is anyone surprised by these kinds of revelations?

Comment by moab 23 hours ago

No. Read the book "Careless People". Meta leadership tried to downplay it by saying the stories are exaggerated. It seems doubtful to me.

Comment by kjsingh 22 hours ago

I have read it and was enough to delete the insta account for good. Still have the fb unfortunately use it to handle some Non profit pages

Comment by Bender 20 hours ago

Similar to Pokemon Go big tech can get footage in places not visible from the road. At work in the restroom should be a notification to HR and lawsuits. In some states this would be jail time [1].

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sVTm608LBg [video][50m]

Comment by munk-a 22 hours ago

Won't this cause significant legal issues in two party consent states and have a huge potential to run afoul of revenge porn laws?

Comment by donmcronald 19 hours ago

Where are all the think of the children people now?

Comment by munk-a 2 hours ago

I've heard that the government has terabytes of data on people that spend far too much time thinking of the children.

Comment by JohnMakin 23 hours ago

It's cheaper for them to settle in a lawsuit than what they are gaining by doing this. If it wasn't, they wouldn't. The laws are broken.

Comment by sdoering 22 hours ago

As is already revealed with Meta leadership knowing that they make 7billion a year on scam ads. They even calculated that global regulations and fines might cost them 1 billion.

So fines and regulations are priced in as a fraction of the net earnings.

https://mashable.com/article/meta-7-billion-dollars-scam-ads

Comment by gdevenyi 18 hours ago

https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses

Comment by ginkgotree 20 hours ago

Putting a camera and microphone on your head and wearing it all day, connected to a platform with Mark Zuckerberg at the helm... what do you expect?

Comment by h4kunamata 20 hours ago

Deserved.

We have been telling people to stay away from big USA tech companies and what they do??

Buy a smart glass from said company!!

No symphaty, and knowing how the system works, these videos will never be deleted and will move from one hanf to another, until somebody leaks them online or request money.

People never learn!!!

Comment by hknceykbx 11 hours ago

You have to record no? Why would you record while in bathroom? Or do they record always?

Comment by thegrim33 22 hours ago

Source: Someone who says that someone said that someone anonymous said. (Literally)

Comment by magicalist 22 hours ago

> Source: Someone who says that someone said that someone anonymous said. (Literally)

Weird way to say workers given anonymity for whistleblowing interviewed by two reporters and not denied by meta in their response?

Comment by jamesjolliffe 10 hours ago

Great! Maybe I can finally get a woman to see me naked!

Comment by paxys 22 hours ago

Meta does Meta things (again). People surprised (again).

Comment by clickety_clack 20 hours ago

True creeper glasses.

Comment by emsign 20 hours ago

AI = Mary, Moses and David from Kenya, ...

Comment by iJohnDoe 20 hours ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47226756

Comment by 22 hours ago

Comment by 23 hours ago

Comment by woodpanel 20 hours ago

Still, amazing how Meta (and Luxottica?) massaged the media to have the wearers of its dystopian goggles not labeled how they ought to be labeled: Glassholes.

Comment by visheshdembla 23 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by dylan604 22 hours ago

While water maybe we, grass being green is going to be a regional/timing thing. My grass currently brown

Comment by 22 hours ago

Comment by nervysnail 23 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by philipallstar 22 hours ago

Why especially public transport?

Comment by irishcoffee 22 hours ago

Well, when you physically assault someone on public transport, at least there's a lot of witnesses present who can testify against you?

Comment by dylan604 22 hours ago

Or for you. If nobody saw nuthin...

Comment by anonym29 21 hours ago

Violence isn't the answer. Handheld IR/non-visible-wavelength LiDAR systems that permanently fry CMOS image sensors are.

If state laws permit the capture of light, let them capture light. Light has no spectrum allocation laws, no license required to emit, and as long as you're not disturbing anyone (e.g. with deliberately obnoxious use of visible wavelengths), you're not breaking any laws.

LiDAR operators do not have a legal duty to protect image sensors around them.

Comment by munk-a 21 hours ago

As much as I'd like a quick hack to disable raybands recording me - that feels like a pretty slam dunk case of destruction of property.

Comment by calgoo 21 hours ago

Just attach a camera to your device and say you where recording in public just like them, no seam to have an issue with that. Your system was just measuring the distance to the target using lidar :)

Comment by IncreasePosts 20 hours ago

You're still responsible for damaging people's property even if you have a super clever reason why you totally didn't intend that to happen :)

Comment by kotaKat 22 hours ago

“Hey Meta” gets “OK Glassed”.

Comment by baal80spam 23 hours ago

[flagged]