- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
- cross-posted to:
- android@lemdro.id
The creator of Nearby Glasses made the app after reading 404 Media’s coverage of how people are using Meta’s Ray-Bans smartglasses to film people without their knowledge or consent. “I consider it to be a tiny part of resistance against surveillance tech.”
more at: @feed@404media.co
You must log in or register to comment.
Admittedly, this is cyberpunk as fuck.
Should not be needed… but it’s a fucking cool solution.
Install this on kali nethunter and make glassholes pay for their crimes.
Next step is for someone makes a version that hijacks the Bluetooth headphones and makes them play a loud shrill noise that makes the glasses too uncomfortable to wear in your pressence.
Should be expanded for IP cams
Wasnt there a ton of outrage and such incl people not being allowed on planes, back when google glass was released?
Why is it all OK now?
Same reason our governments suck ass. Something unpopular tries to get passed again, and again, and again, and again, and eventually people get desensitized and worn out from trying to fight against it. That or it hits on the right time when people are distracted by something else bigger or more important.
I remember Google Glass itself receiving a ton of outrage actually: People hated it and anyone wearing one was made fun of (“glassholes” was a popular insult at the time).
I’ll still use it for the meta garbage, but I think the reason is that the glasses are just inconspicuous enough for most normies to not notice they are being recorded. Till the moron wearing them starts staring off into space while reading tweets at least.
Many years of indoctrination. When Google glass was introduced, it was just ‘a neat idea’. Now it’s a product, and therefore it’s clearly more trustworthy because someone is profiting from it. (/s)
Years of privacy violations going deeper and deeper under pretend of “progress” and “pRoTeCt the cHiLdReN”. I am glad that people started rebelling against Flock, and some removed their Amazon cameras following the Superbowl’s ads, but that’s not even close to how much we should be mad at these mass surveillance actors.
Years of privacy violations going deeper and deeper under pretend of “progress” and “pRoTeCt the cHiLdReN”.
There’s a window of attention for public discourse and there’s fatigue. We, as a group, can only be upset about so much. It’s a tried tactic to just try to distract us with some crazy shit, like Trump did with the alien files. If one crazy thing comes up in the news, other stuff will drop from our radar. And that’s why people try shit again and again and again. Always in the hope that this time people are distracted by other stuff or are finally worn down enough.
Windows Recall has re-entered the chat.
It still isn’t OK.
It is just that the technology became so small, you can’t differentiate with regular sunglasses anymore.
I mean you kind of still can. Wire frame sunglasses are still too small to have recording hardware.
They should be only with transparent plastic a flashing LED that signals CREEP in morse.
Paywalled article. Here’s the link to the app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.pocketpc.nearbyglasses
Edit: it’s licensed under a license I never heard of. I’m curious, I don’t understand why it was needed.
“Why draft new licenses? Until now, there has been no standardization of this kind of source code license, even though it has become increasingly common. This has resulted in confusing and overlapping licenses, which need to be analyzed one at a time. Lack of standardization has used up the time and resources of many in the software industry, as well as their lawyers. The objective of the PolyForm Project is standardization and reduction of costs for developers and users.”
Seems like that exact XKCD about standards.
That license looks like Creative Commons Non-Comercial, which is not an open source license.
This is an unpopular opinion, but using licenses to actively prevent commercial exploitation of voluntary communal labor is not a bad thing. I would even argue that allowing commercial exploitation of free, communally-maintained software is downright unethical. I don’t tolerate this pejorative “it’s not open source unless the rich and powerful can exploit it” bullshit.
Thank you, I see this so often and it always irks me.
"oh but you’re limiting your reach with this license because companies won’t want to us— boo fucking hoo, maybe not everything is about market-share and having a morbillion downloads.If you dont want corpos to exploit it, you go with GPL. Then they are forced to share back.
I like AGPL in theory, but in practice it never works like that. They are protected by a smoke screen — you don’t know if they are using something, how they are using it, or what they’ve built on it — and even if something did leak about their usage they are protected by money — the vast majority of FOSS projects won’t have the resources to pursue any kind of legal enforcement or reasonable remedy. In practice, they will use and build on A/GPL software while contributing nothing back in blatant violation of the spirit and intent of the license, because who is going to find out or enforce it?
I know, and yet the code is open source. Confusing.
No, the code is available, which is not the same as open source.
They do call it “open source” in the docs though.
True, but I have no issue preventing commercial use. I view that as just as good if not better than traditional open source.
Proudly powered by WordPress.
Say no more
Yeah I noticed it in the favicon too. Bad aftertaste.
Perfect response. Record someone without consent, it should be the last time those glasses are wearable.
I can’t speak to the laws in other nations but in the US it depends a lot on where they’re recording. If you’re just out on the street, it’s not only not a crime to record in public, it’s a protected right. So if you punch them they’d be solidly in their rights to mace you or break your legs, maybe even shoot you in many states. And then have you arrested and force you to pay for a new pair of glasses.
But if they were doing that shit on private property or somewhere worse like a restroom, give them the ol western bouncer treatment and send them flying out the door with a broken pair of glasses. I mean you could assault them out in public too, but there could be some unpleasant consequences.
Breaking someone’s legs requires excessive force, so no, you would not be within your rights to break someone’s legs for punching you in the face. That would absolutely be an escalation of force and not legally defendable.
In order to shoot someone in self defense, you have to prove that you feared for your life. Its not a get out of jail free card.
It really depends on the state. Quite a few people have been killed by being sucker punched. So if you punch someone out of the blue they can say they feared for their life.
And breaking legs, the amount of force depends on the person. My daughter broke her own legs twice just by slipping on a stair a little. What if they’re carrying a retractable baton and when you punch them they hit you in the knee with it? Not unreasonable in a lot of the US.
Again though, its not a get out of jail free card. There needs to be a clear threat to life and limb. Just being punched is not an invitation to shoot somebody. Stop spreading false and dangerous information.
It also depends on where and other context. If it is an old frail man or a woman being punched by a dude twice their size it absolutely can be. I also said it depended on the state and I said maybe. I’m not spreading false information.
Open season on meta wearers when?
I agree but the biggest defense for this is to always assume you’re being recorded when in public even if you’re not. You never know.
The issue becomes relevant in private spaces, to me. Nobody with smart glasses is coming into my home.
the biggest defense for this is to always assume you’re being recorded when in public even if you’re not
So women in July should wear tarps?
What posible application is there for this CreepTech?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I would love for an AI machine to be all knowing and all pervasive. It honestly sounds like it could be great.
Except definitelt not because we know 100% that nobody could be trusted to be in charge of it.
Ofc I don’t want this. But I look at my wife and daughter and their safety comes first hence the dilemma. And philosophy should be considered as well.
Fucking assholes would sell out the world for a false sense of security.
Those who would give up any measures of Liberty to purchase any amount of temporary Security deserve neither Liberty or Security.
There is no reason for anyone to be walking around and public with hidden cameras.
would these help lead to more arrest if assaults were captured on the cameras
It might also help find lost puppies, but that’s not a good enough reason to give up any additional amounts of privacy to the megacorporations or to a police state.
Everyone around you has a phone with a camera. Businesses and the government have additional cameras looking all over. The phone camera being less obvious and handsfree seems like an arbitrary choice of where to draw the line
Spy glasses are much less obvious than using a phone camera.
Back to the 1960s…these were marketed to look at kids and girls.
I don’t know about you, but when I’m walking around all my phone camera sees is the inside of my pocket. Hands free stealth cameras seems like a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line.
Is unsolved assault cases currently a problem? That sounds like an answer looking for a problem to me.
And I think it just means anyone deciding to commit assault just also steals/ destroys the victims phone and glasses as a default
I know next to nothing about the glasses, but would they be vulnerable to anything the Flipper Zero is capable of doing?
How hard can you throw it?
Pretty hard. Unfortunately my aim is shit.
Just throw hard enough to trigger fusion reaction then.
XKCD-it. Got it.
depends on what you know about flipper zero.
The app scans for smart glasses’ distinctive Bluetooth signatures and sends a push alert if it detects a potential pair of glasses in the local area.
What do you mean “vulnerable”? Are you trying to blow them up?
Hmm, wonder if Bluetooth (D)DoS attacks are a thing.
https://github.com/crypt0b0y/BLUETOOTH-DOS-ATTACK-SCRIPT
Requires Linux. But a raspberry pi should do the trick.
Now we just need to combine them both so it only targets Meta devices.
how does this work? I thought bluetooth is practically invulnerable to DDOS because of its endless frequency hopping
Haven’t tested it against meta glasses. Essentially it requires the MAC address of the device and pings the shit out of it. May or may not work against the glasses.
That’d be a great TV show plot…but I’m not really a fan of violence. I’d be more interested in rendering them unusable, or spoofing them into making loud fart noises or letting out a loud wolf whistle everytime someone else walks by. Like I said, I don’t know, nor do I much care, what kinds of things the glasses do…but I imagine theres some kind of screen the user can watch, so maybe forcing them to view something annoying could be another viable spoof.
Ok, but how hilarious would it be if a series of vulnerabilities (software & hardware) would be discovered that wound allow just that (set fire to the battery), lol.
Doesn’t work 😮💨 push “start scanning” and nothing happens.
It’s supposed to ask for Bluetooth access at that point, did it?
Also from the GitHub page:
if you don’t see the scan starting, you might need to enable Foreground Service on your particular phone in the Settings menu [in the app’s settings, not the phone’s]
Yes I did. I don’t know what a foreground service is or how to enable it…
Sorry - edited my comment as you were replying. It’s in the app’s settings menu.
Oh I couldn’t access the settings menu previously…
Working now, thanks
It worked for me after I looked at the settings screen. I’m not sure why. If it is working, though, the debug box will fill up with a ton of text.
Turn off “debug” in the app settings to stop that & have it only report suspect devices instead of everything it sees.
None of those buttons at the top work either. Possibly because they’re behind my notifications bar.
For me it worked to rotate the screen, then the buttons worked.
Same here.
Go to Android Developer Settings > Display Cutout, set it to one of the other options and it should shift the app down a bit so you can access the buttons. (change it back after ofc)
I used “waterfall cutout” but others might work depending on your phone model. Afaik no other fix is possible without the app’s code itself being modified.
Ditto
Now you need a powerful laser pointer to ruin the glasses camera. Careful not to blind the wearer.
Apparently the lidar in some cars can damage cameras and are safe for eyes.
Removed by mod
why did mods remove this
how is mentioning that cars are dangerous a “call for violence”
Lemmy mods
Lemmy.world mods. They are kinda like feddit.org mods. Whiny cocksuckers who are just so happy to vent their frustrations (or pretend ones) on their userbase.
The removed post is implying people with these cameras should be run over by cars. Whether that breaks any ToS or not idk but it’s pretty clear what the post is saying
If you prefer to avoid Google: https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
meta is all about surveillance cant expect anything less
I’d fork this just to name it more appropriately: “Glasshole radar”
Pretty sure the Meta Glasses come with NipAlert pre-installed.
Now if they can just notify you that some asshole is recording you on their cell phone instead of reading reddit. probably 0.001% of people out there stalking are using smart glasses.
Now if they can just notify you that some asshole is recording you on their cell phone instead of reading reddit.
If you’re out in public, always assume you’re on someone’s camera. That isn’t really new either.
I’ve never seen an online discussion about privacy without some version of this comment. Never gets old. Is there an Android keyboard with an apathy button that I’m unaware of?
Apathy? Not at all. Its simply a matter of established law, in the USA anyway. I can’t speak to the legal systems of the other 140+ countries on planet Earth.
Can you cite a law in the USA or in your own country where you have a right to privacy making photographing you simply standing in a public park an illegal act perpetrated by another person or government entity?
I’m not the other commenter, and it’s not all encompassing, but I’ll link this one here for DE https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild_(Deutschland)
Forgive the machine translation to English, but reading that shows the a very similar exception to privacy protection we have here in the USA
Here’s one example:
"There are exceptions to events (demonstrations, general meetings, cultural events, etc.). Here, participants must expect to be photographed. This is about what is happening and not about the person itself. "
Most of the wiki article is talking specifically about copyright, which isn’t the scope of what we’re talking about. Publication of taken images is a different topic.
There’s a difference between taking a picture of a person and taking a picture of scenery or event with a person in it in Germany.
It’s a subtle but significant difference. And relevant when talking about do you have to expect for your picture to be taken. You may not care when your in the background or not identifiable but at the same time care when someone knows you and takes photography of you, or takes photos of you where you’re the main focus of the image.
There’s a distinction between whether they will be published or are for private use too.
With your comments I found additional German legal guidance that mostly matches what you said. It appears that Germany does indeed have a portion of privacy from someone intentionally walking up to you and taking your picture. I don’t think this invalidates my original point because it doesn’t appear that expectation of privacy extends to installed surveillance cameras in public.
However, I appreciate having a better understanding of German law. Thank you.
Hat ✅
Hood ✅
Head down in my phone ✅
Lmao it’s just BLE radar.
yep, theres a few apps like that nowadays. Bluetooth is VERY vulnerable. At least from my understanding.
Bluetooth is a result of corporate, Microsoft types, giving a list of requirements. It’s honestly amazing it sits on top of the 2.4GHz 802.11 standards.
I don’t really see anything wrong with making an app for the purpose. Bit of a different target audience and probably easier setup. Also raises awareness via news coverage and by getting people to talk about it.
Didn’t say there was
I just re-watched Ghost in the Shell SAC Laughing Man last night, and wouldn’t mind seeing these things get hacked with the Laughing Man logo replacing any face it was looking at, re-writing signs, etc.
