More organizers prohibit camera-equipped specs, even with prescription lenses
  • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
    351·
    1 day ago

    I like how these only became a problem because Meta made them which meant a bunch of morons bought it.

    Hidden and pinhole cameras have been a commercially available thing for decades, even on glasses.

    Hell they even made one as a kids toy you could buy.

    • raze2012@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 day ago

      only became a problem because Meta made them

      Anyone who remember “glassholes” knows this isn’t new. Wearing a camera on your literal eyes is still a step too far in this otherwise compromised world.

      But yes, I think the big issue here, as others pointed out, has to do with the nature of the company producing them. That’d be especially important for a place like DEFCON, which is all about securing your data.

    • Flatfire@lemmy.caEnglish
      22·
      1 day ago

      Well, morons bought it and the device is directly connected to a data harvesting company. I think that has more to do with it. One lone weirdo with a hidden camera and a home server isn’t the same kind of boogeyman

    • Psythik@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      It’s not the cameras that are the problem, however, it’s the companies behind them that I take issue with. It’s one thing to be spied on by a camera, it’s another thing when data collected from that camera feed is then sold to anyone who is buying. That’s what I have a problem with. The cameras themselves aren’t the issue.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    19 hours ago

    I’d like to know how well they handle being exposed to IR and/or UV LED flares.

    Once that experiment has been performed, try a targeted laser turret.

  • ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.worldEnglish
    75·
    2 days ago

    All hidden cameras should be illegal, I don’t care about your “hands free convenience”

    This is like anti pervert laws 101

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1214·
    2 days ago

    Honestly, they should not ban them, and then just low-key encourage enterprising attendees to pwn the devices and any attached accounts. That would be delightful.

  • theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    99·
    2 days ago

    Defcon is not the place I’d want to wear something like that and make myself a target. Of course, I’d be embarrassed to wear them anywhere, but afraid at Defcon.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 day ago

      I was afraid walking into the room with the wall of sheeple just bc I was wearing a button down in spite of being the sole sponsor of the hackathon. I (as instructed) left my watch, phone, laptop etc at hotel and only brought locked down Chromebook and lived in sweaty terror every keystroke. All while they were stoked and loving the sponsor not just buying a logo, and sent me back with like 500 bucks in swag easily to share back home at the office. Still… Terror.

      • theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        1 day ago

        Fortunately most of the attendees are genuinely good folks, so generally what really happens is just that some data gets scraped and everybody has a bit of a laugh at one of the talks.

        I know worse happens, I just think it’s worth mentioning it is actually a group of mostly awesome people.

  • Null User Object@lemmy.worldEnglish
    30·
    1 day ago

    conference organizers said they have imposed a ban on “Meta-style glasses with recording capabilities.”

    Dammit. I was hoping they explicitly called them “pervert glasses” like the headline suggested.

  • minorkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    231·
    1 day ago

    So have shirt that says, “If you can read this, you may be recorded for your safety and for quality assurance purposes.” That’s what corporations do, right? Should solve the concerns?

    • PattyMcB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      2 days ago
      1. Have said glasses hacked and the video stream played on large screens around the venue for the duration of the convention