Dilara was on her lunch break in the London store where she works when a tall man walked up to her and said: “I swear red hair means you’ve just been heartbroken.”

The man continued the conversation as they both got in a lift, and he asked Dilara for her phone number.

What Dilara did not realise was that the man was secretly filming her on his smart glasses - which look like normal eyewear but have a tiny camera which can record video.

The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3m views. “I just wanted to cry,” Dilara, 21, told the BBC.

The man who filmed her, it turned out, had posted dozens of secretly filmed videos to TikTok, giving men tips on how to approach women.

Dilara also found out that her phone number was visible in the video. She then faced a wave of messages and calls.

  • rustydrd@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think we’re reaching the point where “anti smart glasses” glasses should become a thing, that is, a type of electronic glasses that can detect whether the person you’re talking to is wearing smart glasses and warn you about it.

    • scholar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Infrared leds should be able to overexpose the cameras unless they have IR filters in them.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Better would be glasses (or some other device) that would selectively disable smart glasses. Extra points if the device causes the glasses to catch fire.

      • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Some do, because they want to sell to the international market where it might be required, or because they maybe think it is the right thing to do. It is not required in the US. Hidden cameras have been a thing for st least 75 years and the supreme court has essentially said, if you can see it in public, you can record it in public.

      • mjr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Ah, but he could have had the high-tech circumvention duct tape fitted.

        • ButteryMonkey@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Don’t even need it to look that bad. You can buy tiny stickers to cover that light in such a way as to near-completely hide it.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There are already phone apps that try to do this with WiFi/Bluetooth scanning, object detection, red “filters” and so on.

      Theoretically, it’d be really cheap to make a tiny “detector” camera; maybe a Bluetooth earbud looking thing on one ear? Every existing tiny camera can pick up infrared if you just take off and change the filter, and your phone can run tiny object detection algos with almost no power.


      The problem is mass adoption.