DEF CON bans Meta-style 'pervert glasses'

Ahead of DEF CON 2026 opening its doors in Las Vegas next week, conference organizers said they have imposed a ban on “Meta-style glasses with recording capabilities.” Statements made via its social media channels went on to say that no exceptions will be made for those using the devices with prescription lenses. “Be sure to …

[segfault188]

Alternative headline

Prescription pervert pince-nez proscribed permanently

[James 51]

Time to resurrect the term glasshole.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

What? So there's no reason for them other than to take pictures of things and people that don't want them taken. How does rampant voyeurism make someone a pervert? ;)

[Elongated Muskrat]

I think the sarcasm implied in your post may have slipped by a few people. Probably best to make it more obvious.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

I thought the wink did that! *LOL*

[that one in the corner]

Ah great

A useful technology, with scope for improving accessibility (at its simplest, presenting improved contrast views of the surroundings, after that so many other uses), screwed over because people just can't stop being arseholes - and every one assume that every one else falls into that category.

[adfh]

Re: Ah great

Indeed, I have had a blind colleague talk about all the usefulness etc. This does introduce a question of disability access compliance/disability discrimination if the devices are being used by folks such as the vision impaired for their recognition features (vs plain optics).

Is an interesting question how one might differentiate someone using an accessibility tool vs a glasshole.

[dave 76]

Re: Ah great

Indeed, I have had a blind colleague talk about all the usefulness etc. This does introduce a question of disability access compliance/disability discrimination if the devices are being used by folks such as the vision impaired for their recognition features (vs plain optics).

Is an interesting question how one might differentiate someone using an accessibility tool vs a glasshole.

Make them available as a medical device only? We already have processes to manage the ability to get certain medical devices.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working.And since it's not being cracked down on, it's growing rather than shrinking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working

Ohh, someone's been watching GB News.

Posting Stupid? Post AC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working

I despise such people besmirching my good name.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working

Interesting that you seem to define stupidity as someone having a different opinion to you, in which case you'll probably find this report stupid as well.

Canadian Medical Association Journal: Exposing medical fraud: “one of the last taboos in society”. It even mentions the UK specifically.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3537775/

[Andy The Hat]

Re: In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working

"Interesting that you seem to define stupidity as someone having a different opinion to you, in which case you'll probably find this report stupid as well.

Canadian Medical Association Journal: Exposing medical fraud: “one of the last taboos in society”. It even mentions the UK specifically.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3537775/"

You did actually read that article? For your information it didn't say anything about benefit claimants but did specify several general types of fraudster including patients, consultants and doctors ... or are those the types of lifestyle you disagree with?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working

So...patients. They're the ones who receive the benefits.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Interesting that you seem to define stupidity as someone having a different opinion to you

No, I define stupidity as believing rich people when they tell you poor people are the reason you don't have any money.

[windydick]

Re: In the UK, benefit fraud on health grounds is rampant, a lifestyle better than working

So you're going to swap as you evidently envy their lifestyle?

Don't gratuitously denigrate individuals who, one way or another, probably have a pretty rubbish life.

[ICL1900-G3]

Re: Ah great

You are Nigel Farage and I claim my £5.

[Evil Scot]

Re: Ah great

n*10^6

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

> You are Nigel Farage and I claim my £5.

"We're only making plans for Nigel"..

(Quite clearly in the centuries-old British tradition of poking fun/satire/general unpleasantness at Politician - look at some of the Regency stuff about Bloater-Boy prince for example. The fact that Farage et. al. made such a song and dance about it shows what thin-skinned snowflakes they are. Yes, Widdicome got murdered (certainly a tragedy - murder of anyone is wrong) but their pathetic attempt to use it for political gain is loathsome. I don't remember UKIP et. al crying about Jo Cox being murdered..)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgk3zzpkm7o

The hypocrisy of these cunts is astounding.

"Reform said the party had investigated but it was agreed it was a genuine mistake and no further action was necessary."

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Ah great

No it isn't. Put down the crack-pipe and go and talk to real people to find out what the world is like, rather than relying on deeply biased "I can't believe we're not legally allowed to call it news" channels, bot-ridden social media, and whatever Nigel Farage says today between quivering in fear over the apparently ubiquitous threats to his life that only he can see.

Pillock.

[LogicGate]

Re: Ah great

Farage is mainly afraid that that the population of Clapton may bin him..

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Ah great

population of Clapton may bin him..

That'll be a fun Count..

[andy the pessimist]

Re: Ah great

I have glaucoma. One of these glasses (with some image movement software) would be useful. Please ask the person before tarring and feathering them.

If i could do the image manipulation software myself i would buy these.

A certain amount of compassion would be appreciated.

[Jimmy2Cows]

Re: Ah great

Who's the dick who downvoted this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

>I have glaucoma. One of these glasses (with some image movement software) would be useful. Please ask the person before tarring and feathering them.

Glasses wearer whose hearing is going. With the built-in hearing aids, these things will be incredibly useful to me in about 5-10 years but the perverts are spoiling it for everyone.

I also want instant translation, magnification for small text and a load of other helpful features that will make my dotage more pleasant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

>” Glasses wearer whose hearing is going. With the built-in hearing aids, these things will be incredibly useful to me in about 5-10 years”

Sounds like you are a candidate for a cochlea implant; these are provided free on the NHS..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

I also can see (pun intended) an immediate use for meta glasses as I have recently been reduced, effectively, to the sight in one eye.

It would give me improved near-far vision range without constant switching of glasses ... progressive glasses are available but I find them annoying to use.

I also would like if the software could be adapted for this use.

Else I need 'lenses' that can have the focal length changed electrically, in a similar manner to electro-chromic glass can be darkened.!!!

P.S. Any Venture capitalist reading this. please note the 'opportunity' that is available ... :=)

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Ah great

improved near-far vision range without constant switching of glasses

I've had to do that for years. -12/-10 dioptres of short sight (with unhealthy amounts of astigmatism) plus presbyopia mean that glasses powerful enough to make driving legal are unusable for anything under 1 metre away. Yes, I can *just* about see, but certainly not well enough to read.

So a second pair (bifocals) is required. The main pair are varifocal (which allows me to see the dashboard clearly) but the varifocal area is too small to suit my rapid reading technique.

To be honest, I'd far rather stick to manual glasses and have two pairs than have my irreplaceable vision under the control of a device from a third-party, especially someone like Meta.

[tiggity]

Re: Ah great

@AC

How old are you?

If you are near cataract age then a solution might await

When they deal with a cataract they destroy your lens and put in an artificial lens.

There are multi focal lenses available, that behave like human eye (though NHS only does basic single focus lenses so you would have to pay extra for them in UK)

.. I have only had vaguely OK vision in one eye for decades.

Even that one is now awful (too bad for me to drive, even with glasses)

Getting a cataract op soon (when you are extremely myopic cataracts tend to occur at an earlier age)

..Though with condition of my eye deemed too high risk to have multi focal lenses as an option so I will not have a chance to report on how good those lenses may be - I just get a basic single focus lens.

[Bebu sa Ware]

differentiate someone using an accessibility tool vs a glasshole.

At the risk of channeling the NRA, the device itself is neither - the user and how the device is used is the differentiator.

Clearly a device's user could use the device both as an accessibility aid and as a glasshole.

Dealing with humans is both difficult and messy at the best of times - before they really try to be truly devious.

If I wanted to conceal cameras on my person today, I would build them into a pair of the airpods that everyone seems to sport these days. Stereo vision (and sound), bluetooth straight into your phone and off to the internet.

I was actually rather disappointed to discover that these glasses don't have a heads·up display. I could see applications for a camera-image processing-display loop such as night vision or hazard recognition and avoidance.

[doublelayer]

Re: differentiate someone using an accessibility tool vs a glasshole.

They have a more expensive model that does have one. No clue how good it is, and reports suggest it stands out more to observers, but it exists.

[sabroni]

Re: Stereo vision

Do you think horses have Stereo vision? Do you know where your ears are?

[that one in the corner]

Re: Stereo vision

Horses' eyes are large - MUCH larger than these cameras - and are "deliberately" placed to separate their fields of view, resulting in only a tiny overlap at a distance.

Earbuds can - do - have portions that stand proud of the ears and are visible when you look at the wearer from the front. The camera lens can be mounted, forwards-facing, in those locations. Yes, the region of overlap will be forced forwards from the wearer's own eyesight (get nose-to-nose and the cameras will only see the interloper's own earbuds recording the encounter). But from any position where YOU can see both of a person's ears, THEY can get a stereo view of you from their earborne cameras.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Stereo vision

Horses have stereo vision for anything from four to five feet in front of them, out to infinity (eyes allowing).

Very important for galloping.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Stereo vision

Dang, I got it wrong :-( Horses have better stereo vision than I'd allowed for.

Guess I've been schooled (see icon).

Well, you learn something every day.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Stereo vision

Generally speaking, prey animals have their eyes on either side of their heads. The example used in my biology text book at school was rabbits, who can see not far off a full 360 degrees without moving their heads, but have almost no stereo vision except straight ahead, and not for much of that. Useful to spot predators around you.

Predators have their eyes on the front of the head, as being able to judge distance through stereo vision is very useful when trying to catch your prey. But they can't see that much from either side without turning their heads, and nothing from behind. This is taken to extreme in some raptors and other hunting birds, who have their eyes locked into fixed directions relative to their heads for maximum stereo vision (ever wondered why some owls can twist their heads almost fully around? This is the reason).

Horses are a bit in-between. They are mostly prey animals, and their eyes are towards the sides of their heads but not so much as rabbits. They do have a degree of stereo vision as a result. But very often, they will look at you from one side of their head or the other (this can be very disconcerting when a one-eyed pony I know looks right at you with their missing eye, not sure what is happening then, but I suspect it's listening rather than looking). They do also have a large degree of surround sight, which is why working horses used to wear blinkers to stop them reacting to what was going on around them.

[Scene it all]

Re: Stereo vision

Also deer, sheep, and cows. When the deer who frequent my back yard look straight at you it is a bit disconcerting because their eyes are about as far apart as possible without being like prey birds.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Stereo vision

Very important for galloping.

And spotting if that sabra-toothed tiger is actually going to get you in time to take avoiding action..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Stereo vision

@sabroni: Do you think horses have Stereo vision?

Do you think sabroni has seen a horse, like, in real life?

[nobody who matters]

Re: differentiate someone using an accessibility tool vs a glasshole.

"Clearly a device's user could use the device both as an accessibility aid and as a glasshole."

Clearly, the user reported on by the BBC a couple of days ago, is just an arsehole: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g369y5k8ko

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

Re: Ah great

Then make them perscription medical devices without recording capability.

[Maryland, USA]

Re: Ah great

Generally speaking, a blind person will walk around with a white cane.

[Peter Gathercole]

Re: Ah great

There are degrees of blindness. There are people still have some vision, even when graded as totally blind. It's a scale.

[Helcat]

Re: Ah great

Yup - a friend of mine is now considered blind - but for years she was 'near sighted' (can't see anything in detail beyond a few feet) and couldn't get any help offered those classed as blind because her vision was just the wrong side of the line to being classed as blind.

The problems she faced was having to flag down the bus to see which one it is: That annoyed the drivers as she didn't qualify for the white stick (a shorter version of the white cane to indicate poor eye sight). So a set of glasses that could read the Bus number and tell her: That would be amazing! And if it could spot a car approaching and warn her: Brilliant! And if it could read out the names over shops? Well - those would be of huge benefit to the near sighted!

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Ah great

Helcat,

It ought to be possible to just buy a symbol cane (white stick but for others to see not to help you navigate), whether you're blind or not. The RNIB have a shop on their website in the UK that sells canes. It's also possible to get walking stick versions of the symbol cane - basically a white walking stick so you can both lean on it and signal to people that you can't see well.

Oddly I saw a combined walking stick umbrella the other day. Seems an odd idea, to give you the choice of falling over or getting wet...

[Scene it all]

Re: Ah great

I am extremely nearsighted. One day while driving my plastic-frame glasses broke right at the bridge. Holding one half up to my face I managed to pull over safely. I got out and approached a policeman (I recognized the uniform) and asked him where I could find a drugstore, thinking to get some adhesive tape. He pointed to the store we were standing right in front of and said, "In there." Ever since I have worn metal-frame glasses.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Ah great

Ever since I have worn metal-frame glasses

I've had glasses since the age of 5 - initially the hideous plastic NHS ones (anyone remember those from the 70's?). Up until I was about 12 I was having 2-3 changes of glasses a year, only a few of them because they got broken.

When I gave up on contact lenses about 15 years ago (had to have hard gas-perms because of astigmatism and I was going to have to wear reading glasses anyway) I decided to start buying glasses with the flexible metal frames.

They are pretty good now. You can't quite bend them in half but they come pretty close. The most irritating thing is that, because I wear them all the time, the various screws holding things together tend to work their way loose and I have to remember to regularly go round tightening them up.

That and I have to make sure that the ones I'm not wearing are out of the reach of the boy dachshund as he's got the taste for the silicon nose-pads..

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Ah great

Yup - a friend of mine is now considered blind - but for years she was 'near sighted' (can't see anything in detail beyond a few feet)

My zone of focus extends to about 2cm past the tip of my nose. If I have to read something without my glasses (rare, but ut happens - usually when the text is too small even for my glasses to cope with) I have to remove my glasses, close my left eye (stuff is too close for stereoscopic vision!) and hold whatever it is just in front of my right eye.

Gets me some funny looks..

And, according to the government, I don't qualify as "partially sighted" because I don't have missing parts of my vision and can, in general, live a mostly normal (!) life with glasses (albeit two different sets - one short range, one long). They do give aid though - a 'generous' £5/lens aid for new glasses. Considering that each lens costs about £200 it makes very little difference!

[Roland6]

Re: Ah great

Those glasses sound far too useful, given the trend to treat everything as an advertising surface and enshittification. So that car approaching, sounds like a service someone would be prepared to pay a subscription for, plus advertising for ambulance services and accident claims solicitors…. reading names of shops, more advertising…

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Ah great

I'll be sure to tell my registered-blind-since-birth friend, who, due to a birth defect, has no lenses in her eyes. She'll be so glad to hear she should be going round with a white stick. Should I tell her to get a pair of blacked-out sunglasses and a Labrador as well?

[The Organ Grinder's Monkey]

Re: Ah great

My understanding of the white stick suggestioln was that it's a widely recognised symbol of limited vision, & the bus drivers would be less stroppy if they could see in advance what was going on.

[Roland6]

Re: Ah great

>” Should I tell her to get a pair of blacked-out sunglasses and a Labrador as well?”

Glasses?.. perhaps some novelty contact lenses… thinking of horror or zombie apocalypse …

Labrador - I would hope she has already been assessed and thus there are good reasons why she doesn’t already have one.

One thing you might do is teach her how to use light switches…lights on mean you are in and would welcome visitors.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Ah great

Maryland, USA,

Generally speaking, a blind person will walk around with a white cane.

Most don't. Lots of (most?) blind people don't use them, and the ones that do, don't use them all the time.

The definition of blind is anyone with less than 5% vision - which means that a large number of blind people are getting around by using their eyesight - it's just considerably worse than everyone else's around them.

If you're using a cane, you need to have some kind of idea where you are - as the cane is to stop you bumping into stuff and help you orient - you need an idea of where stuff is for it to be of much use. Most guide dog users, for example, will learn a bunch of set routes (e.g. from home to work and shops), with points to orient themselves and navigate by - which they can then safely repeat. Braver people can use satnav, but that's bloody hard. The dog is there to prevent you walking into obstacles, but obviously can't read the map or street signs. The person walks first, and the dog stops them if there's danger.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Ah great

A medical device as you describe would not need recording abiity.

[On The Off Chance]

Re: Ah great

That's what that dude said after inventing that thing that was later used for very much not what it was invented for.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah great

Ooh, I've got this one

I work in a small town, so there aren't many glassholes here (people without visual accessibility needs using creeper glasses).

So far the only person I have encountered who wore these saw me look at the lens and told me without preamble:

"Yeah, there are people offering to deactivate the 'Recording' light for about $30."

That's nice to know, but what has it at the forefront of your mind bud? Time to get some updated plant visit policies to back me up for next time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold Up There

@ that one in the corner:

You raised the issue of these sorts of glasses as being aids to impaired-vision users by "presenting improved contrast views of the surroundings".

How is that assistance happening? The Meta glasses have, as I understand it, no built-in (user-visible) display. The Google Glasses display is so resolution-limited that I dismissed it as a possible wearable-computer display.

[Confucious2]

Re: Hold Up There

Be my eyes transmits what you see to a human who then speaks directly to you through the glasses, I believe.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Hold Up There

The bans are being applied to *all* glasses with cameras. The specific model named here to are only the latest, cheapest, ones from Meta, which reduce cost by not providing the display (and expecting you to feed the images into their AI, e.g. to read signage out loud to you, after translation, - which can be an accessibility feature).

Different models, from Meta and other manufacturers, do include displays, of varying sizes, resolutions and number.

> The Google Glasses display is so resolution-limited that I dismissed it as a possible wearable-computer display.

You can do a lot with low resolution displays, even those that only cover a small portion of the visual field; even as a wearable-computer display (after all, we got a lot done with low-res displays in the Olden Days). Especially if you add even a very simple beep alert. If you give up trying to use the displays for reading modern websites, low-res can outline a step down on the floor or put up a warning icon (emoji these days). Low visual field coverage, with the beep to indicate you should start, can be "enhanced" by your moving you head to point the thing all around until the dangers have been indicated.

[hoola]

Re: Ah great

The trouble is that the majority of people using these do not actually need the tech. Just like all the other wearable shite they have them because they can and think it is cool to use them.

They should just be banned outright and to sort it properly put punitive fines on the platforms or shops that sell them.

[RockBurner]

Re: Ah great

It's not so much the people being arseholes per se (there will always be arseholes): It's the handling of the data and where else it's disseminated to that is the real problem that generates the hate for these things.

If it was widely known, and trusted, that the captured data was "only" used for enhancing the glasses-wearer's experience (Augmented Reality), and the data was absolutely NOT used for any other purpose (personal identification, training LLMs, etc etc) then the AR glasses MIGHT be more acceptable.

But instead the main problem with them is the unknown, probably suspect, perceived to be nefarious, use of the data by the capturing organisation(s), which makes a useful tool for those who could benefit from it, a socially unacceptable item.

[doublelayer]

Re: Ah great

That's part of it, but I think there is also distrust of the users themselves. If I had camera glasses, and you knew with absolute certainty that they weren't sending the video to someone's cloud server for LLM training, but I could get the video from them and do with that file as I please including uploading it, would it be fine then? I think Defcon would think not. I doubt this is a problem we can do much about since covert cameras will only get more covert with advances, but I think it is part of the concerns as well as Meta's misuse of the data.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Ah great

> used for enhancing the glasses-wearer's experience (Augmented Reality), and the data was absolutely NOT used for any other purpose (personal identification

Personal identification can be "enhancing the glasses-wearer's experience" - it can even be an assistive technology: people can be (nearly) incapable of remembering names, and basic information, of people, even ones they've met multiple times before. Having the glasses identify the individuals and putting up a name tag would allow social interaction and a normal life.

Heck, I've wanted that ability for all the decades since I learnt spectacles mounted displays were feasible, even if the cameras were rather naff back then and processing would be slow.

[anothercynic]

Re: Ah great

Sadly, yes. That's the usual problem - because of some perverts/glassholes, we can't have nice things. And those perverts/glassholes couldn't give a fig about those who need/want/use them for accessibility reasons, because they are egotists/narcissists. They don't think beyond their own needs/wants.

I'm glad to see that venues and spaces are becoming less tolerant of this crap, although those with accessibility needs will need to make sure they have proof they wear them/need them. It's a burden (again) on those who shouldn't need to have to.

[eregister123]

Re: Ah great

The technology itself is bad for privacy. It sucks some people could benefit, but it just is. We can't allow very bad consequences (24h/7 surveillance) just for a few people that would otherwise have benefited.

[BartyFartsLast]

Banned everywhere I go.

Every venue I visit has banned those things, one or two have 'installed' an Android tablet with an app to detect them.

The more serious ones will ban for life if you're caught trying to get into the venue with them

[Zarno]

Re: Banned everywhere I go.

How long before someone makes an airtag-style thing that they can slip on you, that gets you false-positived?

Or the bouncer at a venue sees your $200 set of non-perv glasses, says that the tablet flagged em, and if you "just hand em over and call it a cover charge" you won't get banned...

[werdsmith]

Re: Banned everywhere I go.

I have a pair of black frame RayBan sunglasses which don’t have any form of camera and they are not even Wayfarers. They are from about 2015 trip to USA. I’ve been questioned about them twice.

If I wanted to film with a concealed camera then I could easily do so and I wouldn’t need to be using something like Meta glasses that everyone is aware of.

[steelpillow]

That smartwatch, Madam? -- Your lapel badge, Sir? -- Ah, it's in your gold tooth, you must be a gangster, pass right in...

[Helcat]

The pen in your top pocket. That tie clip. That actual body camera that clips to your shirt or sits in your top pocket, or the camera in your bag that's paired with a peep hole?

There's a lot of small, inconspicuous devices that can record, but don't pair with your phone so don't transmit. Sure, most are more gimmicks than anything serious, but banning the glasses doesn't change that anyone that desperate to record will find alternatives.

[steelpillow]

Uncanny valley?

Even with a Faraday cage and corporate WiFi tunnel, you can pair it with a recording device capable of cacheing a day's worth.

I think these specs are just unlucky enough to touch the uncanny valley of paranoia.

[retiredFool]

Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

If they are prescription. One for public spaces and one for when you enter a restaurant, theater, someone's home, basically any private space. Because it seems people and venue's have caught on. We don't want people recorded without permission on our property.

That fact could hamper sales dramatically.

[Rikki Tikki]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

Aside from anything else, I would be dubious about the practically of having prescription lenses in meta glasses:

1. they are be rather heavier than normal frames, and the additional weight of lenses would make them uncomfortable for daily wear;

2. whether they would be durable enough for daily usage, including such things as getting punched in the face, hit with a cricket ball, etc;

3. renewing you prescription every couple of years might be inconvenient, and possibly expensive if you need to keep the old glasses in reserve (see point 2).

[werdsmith]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

1. All glasses have lenses, they are not additional weight. My varifocal prescription lenses are of negligible weight.

2. I haven’t been punched in the face since my schooldays. It’s not a daily thing. Being hit by a ball is a risk all bespectacled people take, there are things you can do about.

3. New prescription lenses every 2 years is no problem. On plastic frames you just pop them out and press in the new ones it’s normal, it’s what spectacle-dependent folk do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

Despite being high-refractive-index lenses, my prescription lenses definitely add additional weight beyond planar (non-vision-adjusting) lenses. Your other 2 points are quite correct.

[werdsmith]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

That's going to happen regardless of if they are in standard frames or these Meta things.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

To be fair, I think point one was about the weight of the frames, not that of the lenses, just worded a little confusingly. I took it to mean that these things, plus lenses, would weigh more than a standard frame, plus lenses, due to the electronic components, and battery they require, not necessarily because of the weight of the lenses. I would expect prescription lenses to weigh pretty much the same as non-prescription ones, to within a few grams, although they could be a bit heavier if they are glass rather than plastic, and the prescription is strong. This additional weight would presumably make them uncomfortable to wear for long periods, unlike, for example, the glasses I wear for VDU work.

As for being punched in the face, I would have thought that wearing glasses with hidden cameras that stream video to Meta would increase the risk of this happening by a non-zero amount.

Agree with you for point three; unless they haven't realised they can get them re-glazed, nobody is keeping their old frames with their previous no-longer-correct prescription in them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

Strong-prescription lenses, even plastic ones, do weigh more than non-prescription. They have to have a larger curve due to the prescription, and are thus much thicker at the edges.

I DO keep my previous pair of glasses; in the event that my current pair gets broken somehow, I need a spare set. Otherwise I can't drive, read text on a monitor, or do anything else that requires visual focus beyond about a foot away. As a new set of frames and lenses (even with high-refractive-index lenses and coatings) are only about $60 on Zenni, it's not a major expense to replace the frames as well as the lenses.

[Rikki Tikki]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

Agreed and upvoted.

My initial point was that, although the prescription lenses don't add much weight, the weight of frames and lenses can still make it uncomfortable wearing them all day every day.

And, it is best to keep your old pair in reserve, not just for breakages. "Stolen by a monkey in Bali" as an example.

I now use titanium frames and the lightest possible lenses. Lighter and stronger - even when my wife dropped her glasses in the car park and reversed over them, they survived.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

And, it is best to keep your old pair in reserve, not just for breakages. "Stolen by a monkey in Bali" as an example.

I think I've got the previous 3 incarnations in the cupboard upstairs. Just in case.

Although, when I had the recent change, I had new lenses put into my existing frames and used generation-1 glasses during the process. Vision wasn't as good but still legal.

(Ironically, the presbyopia is causing my myopia to actually improve (by about .5 of a dioptre in each eye. Of course, it also means my close focus isn't as good so I had to have the reading/VDU glasses adjusted as well..)

[nobody who matters]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

"I haven’t been punched in the face since my schooldays. It’s not a daily thing."

It might be, if you go around wearing pervert glasses ;)

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Looks like meta glass wearers will need 2 pair of specs

1. they are be rather heavier than normal frames, and the additional weight of lenses would make them uncomfortable for daily wear;

My lenses are not heavier than plain glass - being made of high-refractive index glass (one reason why they are so expensive). Plain glass ones would be about 2cm thick at the edge..

whether they would be durable enough for daily usage, including such things as getting punched in the face, hit with a cricket ball, etc;

Strangely, neither of those form any part of my daily life..

renewing you prescription every couple of years might be inconvenient

For me it's the difference between being able to read without eyestrain and being legal for driving..

[Mike Lewis]

So there's no more...

All your faces are belong to us.

[steviebuk]

Yet

The Agent Orange has a SCIF at the chav hotel called mar-a-lago, that consists of a black, see-through curtain. Allows knobs in with not only Apple Watches but also mobile phones. So they can take photos of their "meeting", while bombing Iran, putting said photo on social media and not realising it gives away all US assets in the area.

[steviebuk]

Re: Yet

7 Agent Orange lovers are around, or just the CCP bots trying to get everyone to in-fight.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

DefCon

Has always had personal privacy and security of your personal data at the forefront.

That's why everyone should take their phone and laptop and connect to the venue wifi

[Surreal]

I read it twice to be sure.

The last DC I attended was in 2019, but this reads like ComiCon: If caught, a perv may be asked to "leave the show and forfeit any unfulfilled autographs or photographs they had purchased."

Really? Autographs and photographs of the 1337 and famous are a thing?

That's just weird AF.

[doublelayer]

Re: I read it twice to be sure.

It wasn't too clear, but there's a reason it sounds like that. That quote/paraphrase wasn't from Defcon. It was from different people, but the information saying that was a few paragraphs up so it's natural not to associate them:

"Monopoly Events banned the same style of smart glasses from its shows, which include UK Comic Cons, in recent days."

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: I read it twice to be sure.

That's because it referred to the policy in place at... a comic convention. Do try to keep up.

[ssieler]

They need to accommodate captioning glasses in some manner (ADA).

Mine, from AirCaps, unfortunately have a non-functioning camera ... but I'd be happy to put a piece of tape over it to make them happy.

(AirCaps buys the hardware from Rokkid, but (presumably) pays a bit less because they don't use the camera. I was annoyed when I realized they had a camera! :)

www.aircaps.com

Some attendees (or potential ones) need captioning.

(In the case of my AirCaps, the actual incoming audio is *NOT* recorded, and thus could not be used either in court or in identity theft attempts.)

[Anonymous Coward]

What’s worse

Paying for an autograph.

Paying.

What kind of saddo has-been charges fans for a squiggle?

[A Non e-mouse]

Re: What’s worse

Because fans are paying shed loads for autographs on eBay, et al. So the "celebs" are trying to take a cut of the money.

[Like a badger]

Re: What’s worse

Why so judgemental about other people's interests? Not my cup of tea, but if the autographer and the autographee are happy with the exchange, where's the harm?

[werdsmith]

Re: What’s worse

Autograph and photo money usually goes to charity like Brinsworth House and Comic Relief etc.

[just4this]

Re: What’s worse

"Autograph and photo money usually goes to charity"

Some, possibly most even, may do that.

Not Cameo clowns like Farage who will apparently say anything for a few quid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfjP79vSqnE

[that one in the corner]

Re: What’s worse

> What kind of saddo has-been charges fans for a squiggle?

We've paid for a photo & autograph from astronauts, including Apollo crew.

The money helps pay for their travel, appearance arrangements, chunk to charity...

Everyone comes out of it happy.

[that one in the corner]

Re: What’s worse

I'll assume my downvoter is a Moon Landing Denier annoyed at giving money to such frauds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup....plenty of outrage about Meta glasses and Glassholes (way back when)......

......but absolute silence about pervasive CCTV.....................

Yup...."perv_glasses == bad"..................

..............but Wayne Couzins using CCTV is PERFECTLY OK!

Sigh!

[Alan Bourke]

Re: Yup....plenty of outrage about Meta glasses and Glassholes (way back when)......

There was (in the UK at least) a long and protracted battle over public CCTV back in the 90s when it was introduced into urban areas.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yup....plenty of outrage about Meta glasses and Glassholes (way back when)......

@Alan_Bourke

"long and protracted battle"............a battle which ordinary citizens LOST!

See also "Flock" in the USA recently......another battle for ordinary citizens to LOSE!

What is your point!

[Joe W]

Re: Yup....plenty of outrage about Meta glasses and Glassholes (way back when)......

Yeah, a battle we lost. And keep losing city by city and country by country.

There is public outcry, there is pushback.

Just because we lose there does not mean we mus willingly roll over in every other instance. So what is exactly your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Yup....plenty of outrage about Meta glasses and Glassholes (way back when)......

@Joe_W

Point: "THE STASI ARE ALREADY HERE".................

Counterpoint: "...and all we hear is outrage about "perv_glasses"!

[Alan Bourke]

Re: Yup....plenty of outrage about Meta glasses and Glassholes (way back when)......

My point is in the comment - try reading it again more slowly.

[Pulled Tea]

Great new euphemism for “pervert glasses”!

“Be sure to pack non-violating eyewear if you need them,” DEF CON said, before directing delegates to the conference’s official photo policy.

What a new great euphemism! You don't want to call 'em “pervert glasses”? Call 'em “violating eyewear”!

Love it.

[that one in the corner]

Can the average thug tell the difference between a camera and any other sensor?

For decades now, there have been headmounted (i.e. on spectacle frames, because those are easy, convenient, self-aligning...) sensors for assistive tech. They started out, frankly, huge, nigh on ungainly: a triangle of ultrasonic transducers right in the forehead. Not widely used, but have been spotted out in the wild.

Nowadays, instead of ultrasonics (which have improved but are still quite large, for physics reasons) we can mount time-of-flight laser sensors; even hobbyist retailers will sell you a nice little 8x8 VL53L5CX sensor. Instead of a triplet of whacking great gold coloured transducers all the onlooker will see is a tiny hole in the spec frames and, if the light catches it just right, a glint of reflection. Discrete and comfortable aid for navigating a hazardous world.

Guess what else is just a tiny hole with the odd glint?

Even the entirely rational, well balanced and, dare I say it, suave and sophisticated El Reg commenters have been known to talk about "punch first, ask questions later" when it comes to "glassholes".

Hey, no problem, I guess we'll just make all the assistive tech bright orange, with a bouncy flag on a spring to let everyone know they are safe to have around. And that'll help my new-old-stock Deely Bopper sales.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the same attendees are perfectly oblivious to Flock cams on every street leading to the event, and the house security cams inside. It is ok for authorities to take anyone's picture but it is not ok for anyone who is not an authority to take pictures.

[that one in the corner]

Flock cams are not owned by "the authorities".

They are installed and owned by the householders and Flock sell those same householders the intrusive services.

Yes, the authorities do also try to take advantage of Flock cameras, and all the others. Sometimes. And un the stories that you read about and get rattled by.

But if you don't like all those doorbell cameras watching all the public streets, bus stops etc, without ever paying attention to (in the UK and EU) laws about signage warning you are on CCTV, then have a go first at the people who are buying and installing them like that: they are not "in authority". If they installed the cameras properly, only looking at their property, then "the authorities" wouldn't find them so useful to misappropriate.

[doublelayer]

You need to check your brand names. Flock makes public surveillance cameras, sold to government for general surveillance. If you're talking about private house surveillance, even when it's also used or misused by authorities, you might be thinking of Ring or similar brands. As written, your comment is incorrect.

[that one in the corner]

I was thinking of the association between the Ring brand of physical doorbells and Flock that was announced in 2025, where the owners effectively mounted the cameras, and pay for them, but Flock got to use the footage. This particular connection was broken earlier this year, true (I'd forgotten/missed that) BUT the point still stands about what all those cameras can see - and do we really expect (people like) Flock *not* to try again? Perhaps without bothering to offer any "advantages" to the home owners and therefore not seeing any point in, well, letting anyone know? Or just Ring's parent company seeing this as an opportunity...

[doublelayer]

The most important part of Flock's business, the thing most of the protests are against, are about the cameras they build themselves which are much larger, intentionally designed to surveil long-term, and are sold to local governments with Flock-run cloud services. Integration with Ring and similar cameras makes it worse, but even without that, it's very invasive. Incidentally, Ring's parent company is Amazon, and I would expect them to keep a constant stream of privacy violations going as long as people buy the things and they seem rather popular so far.

[Jonjonz]

No one said any authorities owned Flock cameras, they are almost all government use cases leased, or rented. That point has nothing to do with the fact that crying about Meta glasses years after the entire civilized landscape has become surveillance hell is just performative whining.

[Jedit]

"It is ok for authorities to take anyone's picture..."

There are a great many things that it is OK for the authorities to do but not OK for anyone else to do, and in a lot of those cases you will - and should - be arrested if you try to do them without proper authority.

That's not to say the authorities don't frequently overstep reasonable bounds when they decide it's OK for them to do something, of course. If you're unhappy with the panopticon on the streets, you'll hear no argument from me. But generally speaking, there aren't many actions that aren't OK for the authorities to do but are OK for a business to do.

[Joe W]

are these people "oblivious to Floxk cams"? Really? The biggest push back comes from the tech savvy crowd. The very same peope attending DefCon etc.

[xyz123]

There's a few people who have no eyes, but use electronic camera signals fed into their brain.

Wonder if an exception is made for them? if not, it'll be lawsuit time.

[47ufCapacitor]

Certainly the Grok Ai undress software integrates nicely with the perv glasses

[Anonymous Coward]

Incoming Data

95-year-old woman walks in front of a man wearing perv glasses linked to his smartphone, linked to Cloud-based Grok AI Undresser program:

"My eyes! My eyes!"

[Azamino]

They have their uses

I had cameras on my bike when I commuted daily to the City and back and they came in handy more often than you would have thought and not just in relation to road users. People act differently when they think that their words are being recorded, they are fair less tempted to cut corners, exaggerate or fob you off.

There are times and places where such monitoring is unsuitable but don't write off the tech because of a couple of edge cases.

[Paul Hovnanian]

The true pervert ...

... will always find a way. I have a pen camera (novelty gift), so better watch what might might be peaking out of a pocket protector. There are also shirt button cameras* that date back to pre-solid state recording days. The control head and power supply being carried in a large pocket or fanny pack.

*Which actually produce more stable video, not being attached to a head bobbling around.

[Anonymous Coward]

To Qualify As A Pervert...............

.....you have to pass TWO tests:

(1) You have to ace Pete Hegseth's "testosterone test"

(2) You have to pass a technical exam about using the Meta glasses.

I guess Jeffrey Epstein (if he was still here)......would get a gold star!

[Uh, Mike]

Garbage-In

When you know someone is watching,

give them a show.

[Rogerborg 2.0]

"Only WE may record everything that you say and do. If you can't trust our minimum wage illegals using their cousin's ID to do gig work, who CAN you trust?"

[BPontius]

Privacy at a public gathering?

"The vast majority of the talent and agents at our events felt that these were a violation of their privacy..", there is no expectation of privacy at a public gathering like DefCon, conventions, trade shows, Malls, stores...etc.!! Caught recording in the restroom, changing room or taking voyeuristic\peeping shots with any kind of camera, you should be banned and deserve to be prosecuted!

Just because you don't see glasses, cell phone or a camera does not mean you are not being recorded. Jewelry, pens, shirt buttons, buckles, purses, backpacks, briefcases...etc. all can hide a camera.

[SundogUK]

Re: Privacy at a public gathering?

DefCon isn't a public gathering. You have to buy a ticket and agree to their terms and conditions. Walking down a high street is public and there is bugger all you can do about being filmed there.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are Conflating "Being Seen/Heard by Passers-By" with "Being A/V Recorded"

... with said recorded data being matched/correlated with other data, being sold on or traded, and used by corporations and government to make possibly-incorrect, negative conclusions about you.

Conclusions which you will be kept unaware of, and have no effective way to contest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mildly intrigued by the number of uses of "pervert" here

Do you *really* all consider that people using these are perving, getting sexual jollies? Being rude/inconsiderate/intrusive/oblivious obviously, but you believe they are also getting their rocks off over these photos?

Could any of you be jumping on the overblown use of "stranger danger even to adults" that is used to create paranoia and hide the fact that actual sexual risk most often comes from people that the victim knows well?

Or jumping onto the worst possible interpretation in order to - what? Gang together and feel the thrill of being part of the mob? Even if it is all done from the keyboard?

[just4this]

Re: Mildly intrigued by the number of uses of "pervert" here

The word pervert has more than one use.

I see only one use of the word pervert in this conversation.

[Infused]

Will Everyone Wearing Glasses Have Them Checked Now?

I assume that's what will eventually happen at some point soon in the future?

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: Will Everyone Wearing Glasses Have Them Checked Now?

No.

Because not all glasses are Thunderbird/Roy Orbison thick stemmed ones - you *might* be able to put a camera in mine but it would:

a) be blindingly obvious because of the size of the metal rims/earpieces of my glasses

b) Also be blindingly obvious because of the cable required to power it - certainly no room for any battery pack.

So even the thickest door-ape would take one look and be pretty sure that I don't have a Petvert's 'R Us headset on my face

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone smarter then me.

... came up with the term "specs-offender" which I find rather amusing.

[FatAgnus]

Where we're going

We won't need eyes to see

[Eric 9001]

Cool

Now are they going to do the job properly and ban surveilling yourself and others with rectangle-style surveillance devices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spy tech banned, really?

Setting the perversion angle aside for a moment, and the various youtube food critics, the bigger issue is remote veiwing by enemies of the state. I know that EV's are banned from some military bases because of the remote tracking along with audio and video they have been proven to be capable of, along with 'smart' watches again for the same reasons. Even mobile phones as many 'navy mums' use remote tracking to keep an eye on where their 'adult' children are, in training lectures, base bars etc and who is actually near them using the Bluetooth association functions, one has even admitted to installing remote listening and vision, without their 'adult childs' knowledge I'm told, have to be left outside 'secure' areas on board/base for this reason. These glasses will be/are even more likely to be transmitting what they see, where are they manufactured and who's backdoored the operating system?