276
To British(UK)/US: Sign the petition "Introduce an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of smart glasses"
(petition.parliament.uk)
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
276 points (97.6% liked)
Privacy
50084 readers
754 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think "smart glasses" are the problem. The term is too broad. The problem is, more specifically, cameras pointed at people constantly, with those cameras being designed to upload 100% of the data to surveillance systems, owned by surveillance companies.
It's totally possible to have "smart glasses" like GoPro that just record locally. Or ones that connect to a local AI model.
The obligatory response to this is "there's no expectation of privacy in public places", and they're right, and changing that comes with a whole boatload of new problems, like recording public servants/officials.
That is a USA-specific legal standard which doesn't apply in much of the world. While it has it's upsides it also has downsides and it shouldn't be seen as gospel, or the only way to do things.
In the US, the judicial system is shifting about that. Slowly! But it is. There is a name for this legal theory which I forgot now. The idea is, once you string together enough individual data points, they enjoy 4A protection. Even if any one by itself wouldn't rise to 4A level. That means while you don't have an expectation of privacy, you DO have an expectation the gov won't use all that data to surveil you without a warrant.
Ofc, that only binds the government. It does NOT bind private co's! Google. Meta. A million data brokers. Flock! So it only addresses part of the prob. Is it good? Yes! But we also need protection against private collectors. In meatspace, we cannot block Flocks and randos with smart glasses. Or the total data fusion that results.
Ah, good. The government will finally start obeying the law. I'm sure Edward can come home now.
This is a logical fallacy. I'm not picking on you specifically, because that way of thinking is all over social media. But it is not a useful or productive way to think about the world.
The law is meaningless if it's not enforced.
Sure. I totally get your sense of frustration, and you're not wrong about that per se.
But in general the law still is enforced. All these things can be true at the same time, (1) We are back-sliding in our enforcement, especially for the politically powerful, (2) There are systemic attacks on the rule of law, (3) In general, the law is still enforced, and (4) There is movement in the court system towards better privacy protections. Even at the very top, arguably corrupt levels of the courts, we see things like Carpenter v. US. And others like that. Those trickle down into a million cases at lower levels of the judicial system. It takes a long time, and the system is not a monolith. It moves slowly. But it moves.
There are like a million court cases every day where there is no political angle, and the right thing happens. The courts slap down 4A violations all the itme, like lack of warrant. And we're seeing a big upswing in cases with a political angle, where the courts stand up against malicious prosecutions too.
So you are right, problems exist! Absolutely. But be careful, b/c frequency of reporting is not frequency of occurence! The right thing happening is not news. It happens all the time, with no outrage-pumping headlines.
My main point is, it isn't a black and white situation. We can't simply say, "The law isn't being enforced, so it is meaningless". That's too black and white. It is being enforced, imperfectly. And it is NOT meaningless to have legal protections for privacy invasions.
We have probs, yes. A shitton of 'em. But we also have to be careful of not falling into doomerism. That leads to bad outcomes.
You seem kind. Thank you for that.
I was simply stating the US government 3 letter agencies have been disregarding the law when it comes to our privacy for many years. I didn't communicate the statement very well. Sorry.
I don't have faith in the liberal system. It's been failing us regular people since it's inception. If there were more people like you, it might stand a chance at being slightly less exploitative.. You're not the average person running things, though.
And anyways, you can't reform a system that has exploitation at it's core.
A revolution will take place one day. It might not be in our lifetime, or maybe it'll be next year, who knows.
Take care kind stranger.
Yah, I agree, the three letter agencies have run roughshod.
Cheers. Hopefully we both live to see things get better, somehow.
Yeah, I can see a use for smart glasses. Specifically in assisting the hard of hearing, those with partial blindness, maybe even people with other disabilities as well. But the upload of data and cameras recording people without their knowledge and consent is a problem. Not just a problem, but the problem.
But also our laws have a habit of not catching up to the reality of how people use tech to violate the rights of others and that really needs to be addressed. Not against consumers but against tech firms and manufacturers.
The tech companies literally live and die on the idea that traditional governments can't keep up... and it's also why the jackass tech barons think they should own and be in charge of everything instead.
The governments want this. TIA never died.
Nice, it's been a solid decade since anyone has mentioned Total Information Awareness. Deep cut.
here
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/07/the-life-changing-magic-of-wearing-smartglasses
Honestly, just get rid of the cameras and I'm fine with smart glasses.
Similarly I have no issues with people using dashcams, but I have issues with dashcams that upload to third party companies without anyones knowledge.