[HN Gopher] Workers report watching Ray-Ban Meta-shot footage of...
___________________________________________________________________
Workers report watching Ray-Ban Meta-shot footage of people using
the bathroom
Author : randycupertino
Score : 156 points
Date : 2026-03-09 18:51 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] Discussion on source:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47225130
| baal80spam wrote:
| "Dumb fucks". Honestly... Volenti non fit iniuria.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Privacy-wise, isn't this completely on-brand and expected from
| Meta? Is anyone surprised by these kinds of revelations?
| moab wrote:
| No. Read the book "Careless People". Meta leadership tried to
| downplay it by saying the stories are exaggerated. It seems
| doubtful to me.
| kjsingh wrote:
| 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
| visheshdembla wrote:
| Water is wet. Grass is green.
| dylan604 wrote:
| While water maybe we, grass being green is going to be a
| regional/timing thing. My grass currently brown
| JohnMakin wrote:
| 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.
| sdoering wrote:
| 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
| autoexec wrote:
| "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.
| simmerup wrote:
| 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
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Don't use it.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Sure you do. All of those are available in local versions
| without Internet.
|
| You _just_ 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.
| simmerup wrote:
| 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
| whilenot-dev wrote:
| > 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.
| pseudocomposer wrote:
| 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.
| autoexec wrote:
| 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.
| simmerup wrote:
| 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
| boomskats wrote:
| Speak for yourself, I rooted my vacuum the day I bought it
| indubioprorubik wrote:
| At least the vacuum does not try to start a civil war for add
| impressions..
| anonym29 wrote:
| >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.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| 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.
| munk-a wrote:
| 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)
| autoexec wrote:
| > 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.
| anonym29 wrote:
| 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.
| autoexec wrote:
| > 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.
| simmerup wrote:
| 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
| scubadude wrote:
| Don't buy the shit. You don't need a smart doorbell or robot
| vacuum at a minimum.
| chaostheory wrote:
| [delayed]
| staplers wrote:
| 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".
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| munk-a wrote:
| 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.
| expedition32 wrote:
| Great if I wear sunglasses at the public pool people think I'm
| a nonce filming kids.
| Xiol wrote:
| Sunglasses, no.
|
| Meta RayBans, deservedly.
| iso-logi wrote:
| 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.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _nonce_
|
| today i learned this word has a definition outside of
| cryptography. it appears to be UK slang for pedophile.
| nervysnail wrote:
| Anyone wearing these glasses in public should be punched in the
| face. Especially public transport.
| philipallstar wrote:
| Why especially public transport?
| irishcoffee wrote:
| Well, when you physically assault someone on public
| transport, at least there's a lot of witnesses present who
| can testify against you?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Or for you. If nobody saw nuthin...
| kotaKat wrote:
| "Hey Meta" gets "OK Glassed".
| anonym29 wrote:
| 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.
| munk-a wrote:
| 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.
| calgoo wrote:
| 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 :)
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| 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 :)
| paxys wrote:
| 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.
| winddude wrote:
| Yea, but not a bad reminder to ridicule people who wear them,
| and if possible destroy on site.
| miltonlost wrote:
| 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?
| gus_massa wrote:
| 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
| paxys wrote:
| Meta does Meta things (again). People surprised (again).
| munk-a wrote:
| Won't this cause significant legal issues in two party consent
| states and have a huge potential to run afoul of revenge porn
| laws?
| thegrim33 wrote:
| Source: Someone who says that someone said that someone anonymous
| said. (Literally)
| magicalist wrote:
| > _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?
| m4rtink wrote:
| Facebook at it again - creating the worst possible image in
| society of a potentially useful technology by their carelessness
| and greed.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| True creeper glasses.
| Bender wrote:
| 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]
| emsign wrote:
| AI = Mary, Moses and David from Kenya, ...
| h4kunamata wrote:
| 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!!!
| woodpanel wrote:
| 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.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47226756
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-09 23:00 UTC)