216
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
216 points (98.2% liked)
Privacy
50045 readers
1030 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.
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.