US police fear Meta smart glasses could be used to secretly record them (theguardian.com)

108 pointsby bookofjoe19 hours ago83 comments

declan_roberts 18 hours ago

This kind of thing just reeks as a meta marketing ploy. My eyes were opened when I started attending some marketing all-hands at my last FANG employer. They do this kind of thing all of the time.

Havoc 18 hours ago

Agreed. They’d love the message to be less pervert glasses and more protect your rights

adolph 18 hours ago

Article specifically mentions the term "pervert glasses"

  US police and federal agents are not alone in their fear. Concern among the public and privacy experts over Meta’s smart glasses, widely dubbed “pervert glasses”, is growing. The technology enables its wearers to record people without their consent and has already been used to harass people.

jtokoph 17 hours ago

The article can be 100% written by the Guardian but with a seed planted by a “leak” from Meta.

atrus 19 hours ago

They'll be fine. As the police often say, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

mc32 18 hours ago

Indeed. In addition, for the most part, even police view their cameras as a positive. Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.

The only situation I can see this being bad is with undercover investigations. This definitely has the potential to blow covers.

infecto 18 hours ago

Where do we get this anecdote that US police like wearing cameras? I have no opinion but am curious if that is true. My own anecdote is the number of times we see police cover or prevent recording when they have discussions with surrounding police or other incriminating acts. Of course biased because those surface with FOIA requests but it’s hard to believe police like it.

mc32 18 hours ago

Things have side effects. When teachers ask to show or explain your work good students have no problem with it and poor students don’t do as well. Yes, it means good students have to put in a bit of more (unnecessary) work but overall it’s good for them and the class and society at large.

Same for police cameras. Overall they protect civilians and also the police itself. Does it mean they have to be careful and restrained when they chat? Sure. Does it allow management to be fussy? Yes. Yet, overall it’s a net good for everyone involved.

infecto 18 hours ago

So no citations then? We can definitely come up with idea though like you have. Again not trying to poke hard here but you shared a datapoint and I am curious if there is data that backs it up.

mc32 17 hours ago

There don’t seem to be recent studies. Mostly the reports go on to say that they are overall positive but that the overall positivity depends on department policies, rollout, etc.

It looks like it’s too early to tell for certain. There are reports and police accounts that cover the spectrum. From what I’ve read online, a plurality of officers think it’s positive. Some say it has changed police and citizen behavior others say it hasn’t impacted citizen nor police behavior.

The overall temperature is positive. My take is that it’s positive as well. Bad cops and bad civilians don’t like it. The rest have some trepidation over privacy and some other aspects, but never the less see it as positive.

JamesBarney 18 hours ago

It's more mixed. They like it because shields them from frivolous complaints, and lets them document evidence against subjects.

They don't like it when management uses it for frivolous minor policy enforcement or they feel like it reduces their ability to use discretion.

But overall police officers who are given cameras tend to me more positive after using them.

infecto 18 hours ago

So no citations?

refulgentis 17 hours ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine."; "Don't be curmudgeonly."

FWIW, with a foothold in both domains, this is quite similar to a cop forum poster dismissing all conversation on CVEs until they get a citation on whether or not SWEs like memory safe languages. It's asking for research, when it can only be afforded an opinion poll, and the issue is too complex to boil down to "yes" or "no" - i.e. some "no"s may reveal the underbelly of dislikable cops, some "no"s may reveal it causes them to lack discretion in enforcement due to an over-zealous manager.

infecto 17 hours ago

That’s not snarky. I am asking for evidence based on the original comment that police like wearing comments. My own anecdotes differ but they are of course anecdotes. Asking for citations is neither snarky nor worth of posting a rules link.

You seem to be misreading what I said. I am pointing out that what I have are anecdotes and I would love to have some real data instead of folks just claiming what police like or dislike. I am sorry you feel the need to be slightly rude in your response too. Again I am not hand waving but simply saying it’s hard to believe cops like wearing them but I have no idea what they feel and I would love data instead of folks expressing ideas. Unions highly opposed the rollout of cameras and I know in the biased selection of videos we see, conversation is often muted. Sorry my post confused you, I am not claiming to know either way!

a34729t 16 hours ago

You ever talk to any cops?

adolph 18 hours ago

Here is an interesting quick read about the Australian experience with body worn cameras (BWC). I selected it from the search results since many of the US-centric results are sourced from DoJ or similar which may be seen as less than objective.

My takeaway is that like anything, generalizations miss a lot. BWC have lead to more efficient triage of complaints against police officers that even if sustained reduce the substantial amount of uncertainty. It is an open question to what degree BWC neutrally observe police behavior which is better than anecdotes or if the presence of the observer alters police behavior to meet standards.

https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/doi/10.1093/police...

infecto 17 hours ago

Interesting. I for one wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body. I would think it should improve outcomes for everyone abiding by the law. I just don’t know in the US how much local police appreciate wearing them. I go back to the 2010s when they started rolling out and it was a pretty large sticking point with most of the unions. Hence I would be surprised cops have changed that much.

adolph 15 hours ago

> wish cameras rolled constantly in cars and on body

As I understand it, there is a tough balance. Given presumptive release, always-on cams might disincline vulnerable populations whose cooperation is socially useful.

> large sticking point with most of the unions

Any change the conditions of employment desired by the employer becomes a negotiation point for a union, no conspiracy to hide misbehavior needed.

infecto 9 hours ago

Yea that is why most departments have sensible policy allowing the camera to be turned off for informants or tipsters who don’t want to be on camera. That’s how most of the camera policies are run. Always on for calls with special exceptions.

That assumes you appreciate unions. I think most like police and dockers unions are counter productive for everyone. But no conspiracy needed, it just sours the relationship

kijashdkujdfhas 18 hours ago

One of my favorite subgenres of body cam videos on YouTube are those where a cop, politician, or other official is under suspicion of some crime and is angling for an off-camera conversation to discuss how this whole thing could be swept under the rug, and the camera-wearing cop ignores or deflects the request, possibly getting to a point of outright refusing to talk off camera.

Maybe the cop would have refused to engage in an act of corruption without the camera being there, but I'm glad the camera is there to discourage corrupt behavior.

infecto 17 hours ago

To add. It was not that long ago that most police unions were resisting the implementation on the grounds of collective bargaining. This was 15 years ago so I guess sentiment could have changed but I would be shocked with how often you see thin blue lines.

hitekker 16 hours ago

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/01/11/police-...

Since 2016, 2 out of 3 US officers supported body cameras. That percentage increases after uptake https://ircommons.uwf.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Pol... with even skeptical Police unions & advocacy orgs gradually speaking up in favor of cameras https://fop.net/letter/abc-act-hr-3248/ https://www.policeforum.org/trending6jan24 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comments/1uf0d3a/did_the_dema...

Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.

I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube

infecto 16 hours ago

Thanks for sharing! I had missed some of the updates on unions since I looked.

gamblor956 13 hours ago

Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.

FireBeyond 17 hours ago

I am going to need a citation there. Around my state, body cameras have been fought by police unions and have had to be bargained into CBAs by government, when really, they should be treated no different than uniform, PPE and equipment.

secretsatan 17 hours ago

I think they’re only happy when they can control what will be released.

doom2 8 hours ago

> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.

Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.

mc32 8 hours ago

Why?

People have put out apps to track them in order to doxx, hound and intimidate them. People organize neighborhood vigilantes to look out for ICE. Communities have chosen to not turn over violent offenders who are in the country illegally over to ICE. You have people pelting them with bricks and other objects. You also have the Dems in Calif saying that merely working for ICE should disqualify them from state jobs. And that's for a job that enforces US immigration law. The same law Obama used to deport more than Trump has. The same laws that have been in effect for many decades. If I were one of them, I probably would want protection from vigilantes too. What other countries do you have where immigration enforcement officers get hounded not so much by the illegal immigrants but with their sympathizers? You don't see that in China, you don't see that in Japan, you don't see that in Mexico, you don't see that in Sweden, you don't see that in India, or Turkey. And, yes, all those countries deport illegal immigrants.

Imagine if you had police officers accosted when they try to make an arrest, or get interference, or get their cars rammed at by bystanders. If all communities cooperated with ICE in carrying out lawful removals and there were no sanctuaries, rhetoric, etc., then yeah, likely it would be good for them to have cameras.

Zenul_Abidin 12 hours ago

Exactly

dentemple 18 hours ago

Clearly, all Big Tech needs to do is to create some version of "Flock-powered" smart glasses and, all of a sudden, U.S. police will become Meta's biggest cheerleaders here.

jordanb 19 hours ago

I feel like this is a submarine ad for the glasses by Meta.

jnwatson 18 hours ago

That was my thinking. It is the first legit use case I've heard.

idiotsecant 18 hours ago

if it is it's genius marketing - they aren't pervert glasses, they're tools to fight the man!!!

The longer I typed in that sentence the more convinced I am youre probably right.

nicce 18 hours ago

Imagine a world were you see glasses being sold out just to prove that police is acting against the law.

webdoodle 18 hours ago

Yep, this doesn't feel organic at all. Meta must be pretty desperate if they are going to go against the blue to sell spyglasses.

2PqboPPmKegvanx 18 hours ago

don't they know?

>“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”

kyralis 18 hours ago

The irony of someone on Fox News arguing for compromise is thick.

tencentshill 17 hours ago

They elected Him because He willfully doesn't compromise, ever.

pjc50 18 hours ago

The panopticon is only supposed to look out, not in.

Zenul_Abidin 12 hours ago

So when the government doesn't want to be tracked, suddenly it's dangerous

binarysolo 17 hours ago

Sousveillance is one of the few acceptable use cases for these meta glasses that I can support.

itsmartapuntocm 18 hours ago

Why did they do something wrong?

TheChaplain 18 hours ago

I am a little more concerned over creeps, stalkers, pedos and teenage bullies.

parasxos 15 hours ago

Everyone in this story is afraid of exactly the same thing, being recorded without consent, and each side is sure it only counts when it happens to them.

subscribed 11 hours ago

Hm. If these glasses can run custom software maybe they could even start recording automatically? :)

UltraSane 14 hours ago

Cops should always behave is such a way that they don't care if they are being recorded.

samrus 18 hours ago

I do love the irony and schedenfruede, but this isnt about recording in public areas, its about recording the inside of prisons and ICE concentration camps. That is generally not something you can legally record and is analogous to a flock camera inside your office or house, which most people would agree is bad

dbingham 18 hours ago

...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad?

Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.

idiotsecant 18 hours ago

Yes I can imagine could be quite embarrassing for the abusers.

Ydarbleoj 18 hours ago

We should absolutely be able to see inside of our prisons. What are they hiding (My expectation is that we treat people humanely. You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their prisoners)?

chasd00 18 hours ago

> What are they hiding

the privacy of prisoners maybe. A prison cell is not a public place (nor the hallways either) so there is an actual expectation of privacy there.

alistairSH 18 hours ago

Lack of access to the public doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation of privacy. Criminals in jail typically have far less expectation of privacy in the US. That's been upheld by SCOTUS. Guards are (mostly) free to enter spaces and view prisoners at any time.

samrus 18 hours ago

I mean, they need to be able hide any weaknesses that will allow prison breaks. A prisoner or their collaborators can use this footage to gain intel about these things and break people out. People who might deserve being in prison, like murderers and rapists and stuff

Zenul_Abidin 12 hours ago

Who on earth is bringing smart glasses inside prison buildings?

josefritzishere 17 hours ago

This is definitely marketing.

michaelhillaert 18 hours ago

Probably police officers will start to use them as well at some point in the future...

cogman10 18 hours ago

A lot of cops already have cameras on their chest (which they can freely turn off and mute). Meta glasses buy them very little.

xnx 14 hours ago

Dashcam for your face.

exe34 18 hours ago

I know that mass surveillance is inevitable, which is why I would prefer the circle to 1984. If they're watching us, we might as well watch them.

jlarocco 17 hours ago

The rest of us fear that and nobody gives a sh*...

jonathanstrange 18 hours ago

Who doesn't fear that...

pmdulaney 18 hours ago

Could be?

ck2 18 hours ago

wait 'til they learn watches now can record them and upload in realtime via LTE

smartwatches are also just one or two generations away from having cameras

bookofjoe 18 hours ago

AirPods Pro will have them in the very near future

YarickR2 18 hours ago

Fear not; they _will_ be used to secretly record them.

morkalork 18 hours ago

How long until a random person wearing Raybans in one of those states that banned recording within X-feet of an officer gets shot?

moh_maya 18 hours ago

“Cops apprehensive about impending Orwellian state”