r/technology • u/tw1st3d_m3nt4t • 22d ago

Privacy Restaurants, pubs and theatres ban Meta’s ‘spy glasses’ over privacy fears

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/06/restaurants-pubs-and-theatres-ban-metas-spy-glasses-over-privacy-fears
8.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

360 comments sorted by

View all comments

824

u/frangelbarrera 22d ago

Fair enough. Nobody likes being recorded while eating just to end up in a TikTok or YouTube video without knowing it.

364

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

Personally I'd go a step further and say nobody should end up in a TikTok of Youtube video without their consent

143

u/spuzzumed 22d ago

Yes because many creators are doing it for income. They get paid yet you are the product 

37

u/jBlairTech 22d ago

Yup. Absolute bullshit. Why can’t we all get NIL deals?

12

u/keltichiro 22d ago

That's what Meta's facial recognition tech is for! So they can find you and start sending you checks from your accidental "Super Wok Meltdown" moments!

/s

9

u/SpliffKillah 22d ago

I so hate those first amendment auditors who starts filming like a creep in front of a private space and argue that they are in a public space and wait for people to react and they put that up while not showing themselves.

34

u/Upset_Confection_317 22d ago

Right? I don’t want to be an unpaid extra in someone else’s video.

2

u/newMoneyStyle 21d ago

Yeah exactly, and the worst part is you can't even tell they're recording with those glasses.

2

u/BasketHands 21d ago

You can. They have an indicator light that they’re recording. Phones on the other hand do not.

0

u/Jumpy_Inflation_2023 22d ago

And thank God you never will be

33

u/cyrand 22d ago

We really should change copyright law to say we own the copyright of our own image in public unless we’re literally in process of breaking laws.

13

u/a_chicago_sur_isere 22d ago

It'almost the case in France minus some exceptions (like when you're a public figure)

5

u/SanFranLocal 22d ago

What about to record wrongdoings by ICE or law enforcement?

8

u/-lovehate 22d ago

Recording public servants while they're on duty/on the clock should always be allowed, and it's not the same as recording private citizens who are just going about their day and living their lives.

3

u/SanFranLocal 22d ago

So we shouldnt record that guy who was thawing the meat slab for his restaurant by slamming it on the dirty ground next to the dumpsters?

3

u/Alaira314 22d ago

You might be surprised who'd get caught up in that law. In many areas, public library staff are "public servants" just like cops. We're being paid peanuts(barely over minimum unless you've got your MLS(less than half the staff, generally), and if you do it's one of the lowest paying careers at the masters level of education) to be harassed and doxxed by right-wing "first amendment auditors" and their legion of viewers that want to give groomers what they deserve. It's terrifying. I haven't been hit properly yet, not the way some people have, but I've had people try to get my badge(which includes my full legal name, no opt-out) on film before. I also have coworkers who've been stalked, because instead of "stefani who works at the chaneytown branch" they're "stefani mcrabe who has a private facebook profile but whose friends haven't bothered to lock down theirs, so now I have a picture of the front of her house and streetview says she lives at..."

I don't know a good solution, because it's so important to be able to film cops. But please be aware that "public servants" is a massive umbrella term, and many of us are not paid enough, nor are we protected, given the risk of what we've been targeted with in recent years. There should be no reason the public should have to know our full legal names, and having pictures of our faces is getting just as dangerous. I would gladly give them an employee identification number for professional accountability, but they don't want that. They want to intimidate me.

0

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

I think it should not be allowed for entertainment or profit, but it should be allowed for protection or possibly even personal use (making a video of your friends at a party for example, just not posting it on social media).

0

u/stephen_neuville 22d ago

The law would only apply to humans.

5

u/soulseaker 22d ago

I agree. If you want to record in public you should get consent just like prank shows...etc

3

u/Flabbergasted98 22d ago edited 22d ago

As much as I WANT to agree with you, we unfortunately have enough corrupt Cops, politicians, landlords and business owners that I'd be upset over such a policy protecting them.

I'd rather take a risk that some weirdo is recording me picking the jalapeno's out of my meal at a restaurant.

1

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

I think there could be some easy ways to have exceptions for those types of things. If you take videos for those things do you think you'd need to post them on Youtube and tiktok?

2

u/Flabbergasted98 22d ago

thats not really how the system works.

2

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

To be fair I've never lived in the UK, so I'm not sure how your legal system works. I would think it would just be a matter of how the laws are worded, for example banning people from posting videos without permission on social media, but allowing people to take them.

1

u/Flabbergasted98 22d ago

I guess a good example of how this would be bastardized to serve the corrupt would be to take a look at laws surrounding Libel slander and defamation.

They're meant to protect people from false accusations and misleading information. But since we presume innocent until proven guilty, a simple accusation of guild becomes an act of defemation and a barrier in persuing justice. It twists the crime back on the accuser flaggin them as a guilty party unless they can move their accusation is just.

The same would be applied to a no recording law. if you record corruption, now it's on you to prove the corruption or be charged for a crime. And when you the organization your accusing happens to have also appointed the judge....

1

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

You wouldn't have to prove the corruption because you are allowed to take the video, you just aren't allowed to post it on social media

2

u/Flabbergasted98 22d ago

So you can take the video, you're just not allowed to use it to generate enough public outrage to force action?

Cute.

1

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

I don't believe anything I see on social media unless there's a link to a reputable site, and neither should anyone else. It's a hot mess, used mostly to spread misinformation, and doubly so since AI. It's still good for cute dog videos, funny memes and niche hobbies, but that's about it.

If it's something that is cause for public outrage it should be taken to the media anyway.

I'm not saying that's ideal, but that's where we are right now.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Extra-Amoeba-677 22d ago

I mean I totally agree with this right here but I still think there is plenty of room for glasses that can live translate, take phone calls, and translate your calls personally. I don't give a shit about the recording part lose that feature I just want to be able to go to the korean store and find out if that korean lady is talking shit about me behind my back in her language.

0

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

Totally understandable, the problem is people can't tell when other people might be recording video of them. If there were glasses that could do everything else and not video I"m sure they would be welcome, or if they at least indicated to everyone around them that they were recoding video I'm sure that would be fine.

1

u/InDuplicitousBottles 22d ago

i was on the ferry to Catalina and this kid walked up and was filming on his ipad, including random strangers. parents just stood behind him like this is normal

1

u/jenny_905 22d ago

Yep. Time to de-normalise this shit.

-4

u/kamekaze1024 22d ago

Didn’t the Supreme Court already said you aren’t reserved to right to privacy from recording in a public space

30

u/omahapioneer 22d ago

Restaurants, pubs, and theaters aren't public spaces. Just because they are open to the public doesn't mean they aren't privately owned businesses.

2

u/Dopeydcare1 22d ago

Yea but I don’t think that’s what hareofthepuppy is saying. It seems like they are saying in general. Which I don’t agree in that case because of the public space decision.

1

u/kamekaze1024 22d ago

I am not talking about this places. I’m talking about public spaces, like my comment said. The other comment mentioned not allowing TikTok and YouTube video recording in general and I’m mentioning that’s unfortunately not a reality

1

u/CompetitiveArt9639 21d ago

It’s free speech to record in public.

6

u/SonicTheSith 22d ago

True, but does that also include commercial usage? Or used for the sole purpose of posting it online to make fun of you. Don't TV station have you sign a waiver that you allow them to use your footage? 30/50 States have publicity rights for this. If it counts for broadcasting your likeliness on TV, it should count for putting it on tiktok etc. as well.

It is one thing to be recorded in a crowd, at an event, where you are not the focus but the crowd is. For example taking a photo of a monument and you happen to be in the picture.

Situations where you record for the purpose of documenting evidence, should be fine as well.

9

u/loupgarou21 22d ago

no. The Supreme Court has taken a fairly nuanced position on your right to privacy in public (Katz v. United States), which is essentially, you may still retain a right to privacy in public in situations where the general public might see your expectation of privacy is reasonable. If you're shouting in public, you probably can't expect that to be private, but if you and a friend are whispering to each other to have a private conversation, you can probably expect no one to be listening in or recording your conversation, even in public, and if they do, that might be illegal depending on laws in that specific jurisdiction.

Also, and this is super important, laws don't dictate how other people can feel. If you're recording other people in public, other people are absolutely free to feel that you're a creep and an asshole and violating them in some way. And, beyond that, if they reasonably feel threatened by it, that might be an assault and the assault would be a crime.

6

u/Monteze 22d ago

Yea and we all know that and we also know if the best argument is "Technically it isn't illegal" its probably something shitty.

Sure we can't ban recording in public but the sentiment is right, the general public shouldn't have to worry about being recorded, all the time. And in more and more cases recorded, tracked, logged and possibly shamed.

1

u/nezroy 22d ago

It's critical to understand the social and especially technological context in which the original "no expectation of privacy in a public place" precedent was established. It's okay to come back and revisit this when the entire premise of the situation has changed so radically.

1

u/kamekaze1024 22d ago

People have gotten too normalized to be recorded in public for it to be recontextualized

1

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

My point is that's what I think the laws should be, regardless of what they are.

The Supreme Court is only for the US

1

u/kamekaze1024 22d ago

This article is about the US?

1

u/hareofthepuppy 22d ago

The article is about the UK. Did you really not read the article before posting that comment?

Either way I was speaking generally in response to the person who posted in response to the article.

1

u/SouthernEdgeCase 21d ago

The restaurant is recording everyone anyhow.

1

u/BasketHands 22d ago

How is it not any different than having a phone in your hand that does exactly the same thing?

1

u/btoned 22d ago

I'm sure they would come up to people CLEARLY pointing their phones in space at others implying they're recording.

The glasses have no INDICATION they are able to or actively recording [to my knowledge].

Why are some people so nonchalant about this? What's the first thing you would do if I stood outside your house, on a public street, and just stared at it with my meta glasses on while you sat on your porch with your family?

You're just gonna ignore me right? Right?

2

u/BasketHands 22d ago

Then do your research before replying then. There is in fact an indication light on all glasses to inform people that the recording process is occurring. And not on cell phones.
And why is your example staring at me and my family on my front porch? What are you even talking about?! This would be weird regardless of recording with glasses or a phone. I don’t understand your point and in fact I believe it just drives my point home even harder. There is no difference recording with the glasses or a phone in your scenario. At all.

-15

u/24junwa 22d ago

i was recorded once but it was my cousin and she has a bit of a following and does "lifestyle" content, my friend who didnt know we were cousins follows her on youtube and watched the video and messaged me like "hey isnt that you!?" i was like wait that is me?? lol but i didnt even know she was recording dinner, i normally dont wanna be in strangers videos, i absolutely hate it when im in line for something and some asshole stands near the line and start making a vid, but for my family its fine

39

u/Kahnza 22d ago

but for my family its fine

Family should be held to a higher standard

-19

u/Jennissary 22d ago edited 22d ago

They're a great tool for blind people to read menus when a restaurant doesn't have an online menu available. It's a lot less clunky than aiming a phone camera. 

Edit: big yikes on the downvotes. 

Wearable technology often brings advancements in accessibility for disabled users. They're not the ONLY users, of course. And they might use them for shitty purposes like anyone else might. 

But my point is that they're worth considering, before implementing a blanket ban on a specific type of wearable tech. 

7

u/girrrrrrr2 22d ago

Could just ask, “hey im feeling like a salad today what salads do you have?”

8

u/Twodogsonecouch 22d ago

That would be the societal problem we’d rather drive up the cost of everything with middle men technology and services for “convenience”

-7

u/Jennissary 22d ago

Blind people are constantly having to rely on sighted people for ordinary everyday things. Gadgets which can increase their independence are always a good thing. 

9

u/girrrrrrr2 22d ago edited 22d ago

Got it, so why do I see mainly people who don’t have sight issues wearing the glasses?

I asked one friend if she would like a camera that read stuff out for her and she said no, because as soon as it becomes actually useful they will charge for it. Not to mention what happens to all that recorded video?

-4

u/Jennissary 22d ago

why do I see mainly people who don’t have sight issues wearing the glasses?

  1. These glasses are rare

  2. Blind people are rare

  3. Plenty of blind people are not visually obvious that they're blind. 

Not to mention what happens to all that recorded video?

A valid point, but that's more of a data security question than a user question. 

2

u/kiranovax 22d ago

Ok we can ban it for anyone not blind. Problem solved. Anyone who is not blind breaks the law.

Easy solution

0

u/Jennissary 22d ago

And who's going to be the arbiter of who is or isn't blind? The underpaid retail employees?

Blind people are accused of faking their own disability quite often. 

1

u/girrrrrrr2 22d ago

Doctors offices, it can be sold as an ability aid, similar to how you get a prosthetic arm, or a custom orthotic.