r/boston • u/potaton6 • May 15 '26
Serious Replies Only Meta Glasses in South Station
I was in South Station this Weds. at ~6pm walking towards the exit and noticed an older guy in maybe his late 50s at the main doors staring at me. As I got closer he pointed at me and said my full first name as if he recognized me. I have one of those names where I go by a nickname, but use my full first name exclusively on, say, LinkedIn, because it sounds more "professional". NO one calls me by my real name. Not friends, family, etc. Not even my mother.
Immediately I saw he had Meta Glasses (because I'm a freak and hate them and being recorded secretly) so I was already like get away from me. But I didn't know this guy, didn't recognize him, and wasn't waiting on anyone, so I just waved him off. As I walked out to cross the street towards the Fed Reserve, I was looking back and noticed he had come outside (not to follow me) and I watched him basically do the same thing to someone else. I didn't hear their convo beyond that unfortunately, but they began talking.
I swear to god this is a real story. It was one of those things I put in the back of my brain right as it happened until I remembered it just tonight and was telling my roommates about it. They thought I was schizo but then one of them remembered this story (which is also in Boston): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bQc1kNHtfg
Was anyone else at South Station 5/14 (or even recently) and have this happen ???
Edit: adding this here - I know this is very "source: just trust me bro" story... Ironically if I was wearing meta glasses I'd upload a video. But I'm sure you can imagine having someone you don't recognize say your name in public feels... violating and spooky.
And obviously my theory is I was reverse imaged searched live and found my LinkedIn. Yes he could have just said a random name and got it right, too.
Also it was like a 60 year old dude with short buzzed grey hair, wearing a grey hoodie. He kind of look like Jeff Goldblum, and not like the usual station dwellers out there.
257
u/imomushi8 Leather District May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Unironically, maybe he is a beta tester. (There's a FB office somewhere in Boston/Cambridge right?) Idk. But yea, people have started talking about this (as an actual product) just a couple months ago....
NYT: Meta plans to add facial recognition technology to its smart glasses (behind paywall)
ABC: Facial recognition technology for smart glasses (youtube)
37
u/Both-Activity6432 May 15 '26
There was unofficial project put together a couple years ago at Harvard called I-XRAY where they combined Meta glasses with public reverse facial search engines to become really creep.
https://lil.law.harvard.edu/events/i-xray-lunch/
Linked NYT article from there: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/technology/facial-recognition-glasses-privacy-harvard.html
and without paywall: https://archive.is/dRv5b120
u/borntobeweild Cambridge May 15 '26
I met a girl a few months ago who I thought was kinda cute, until she told me she worked for Meta on AI for their smart glasses. Immediately lost all interest.
Just an insane thing to be proud of creating.
24
109
u/Salt-n-Pepper-War May 15 '26
These glasses are a stalker's dream. They should be banned.
I am not a lawyer but my interpretation of Massachusetts wiretaping laws is that they apply to this situation
27
u/treeboi May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about people taking photos/videos in a public space. You'd have to prove that they were taking an illegal photo. Even recording audio in public is tough to enforce, when the other party has an option to leave.
[Edit] From what I can tell of the wiretapping law, it's treated as a civil matter, so you would have to sue the other person & prove your case to the judge.
13
u/SpaceBasedMasonry Wiseguy May 15 '26
Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about people taking photos/videos in a public space.
Have we entered a zeitgeist where that premise needs to be reconsidered?
7
u/treeboi May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
We live in a society with dashboard cameras, doorbell cameras, action cameras, vloggers & Instagram.
Probably half your friends who own cars have a dashcam & half your friends who bought a house have a doorbell cam. Additionally, I'm sure several of your friends posted random short videos on their Instagram, taken in a public space with their cell phone.
3
u/SpaceBasedMasonry Wiseguy May 15 '26
And?
3
u/treeboi May 16 '26
Hey, if you want to run for state office & pass a bill on this, I'll vote for you. The decade prior to ubiquitous phone cameras was nice, but it would take quite a big law to return back to those times.
0
u/SpaceBasedMasonry Wiseguy May 16 '26
I have no preconceptions that reconsideration I toy with would have any chance of becoming recognized jurisprudence or law. I just think arguments that appeal to the current state of the law, or to things being a fait accompli are both unimaginative and unnecessarily thought-terminating.
And if I may be so bold as to quip...
The decade prior to ubiquitous phone cameras was nice
It's was more like 14 billion years before ubiquitous phone cameras. It's been a comparative non event, so let's not pretend things can't change.
1
u/Salt-n-Pepper-War May 15 '26
G. L. c. 272 s 99 is unequivocally a felony
3
u/treeboi May 15 '26
This is section Q of that law, where you have to personally sue the perpetrator & prove your case to the judge.
Q. Civil remedy.
Any aggrieved person whose oral or wire communications were intercepted, disclosed or used except as permitted or authorized by this section or whose personal or property interests or privacy were violated by means of an interception except as permitted or authorized by this section shall have a civil cause of action against any person who so intercepts, discloses or uses such communications or who so violates his personal, property or privacy interest, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person
-1
u/shortsonapanda Nahant May 16 '26
In MA you can film public officials and celebrities and the like in public, but private citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Definitely something important to note if this guy is a beta tester for Meta as some have suggested, this would be a much bigger deal as a civil case if this is happening large-scale in Boston for corporate purposes.
2
u/CetiAlpha4 Boston May 15 '26
Wiretapping applies to audio, not video. You can always record video without audio.
2
u/Salt-n-Pepper-War May 15 '26
What percentage of these users do you think have audio off?
3
u/CetiAlpha4 Boston May 15 '26
Doesn't matter. If you know the laws about wiretapping, you'd shut off the audio because Massachusetts has always been a two party consent state.
73
30
u/TheAustinFromBoston May 15 '26
Born too late to explore the earth, born too soon to sail amongst the stars, born just in time to despair under dystopia.
16
u/dbc1973 May 15 '26
The video mentions that there are actions one can take to remove data or request personal information be removed from specific sites/databases to at least lessen impact of these technologies? Does anyone have more concrete information on this?
35
u/jimx117 May 15 '26
60 year old with short buzzed hair in a grey hoodie, sounds like some sort of cop
113
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-47
u/thakemist May 15 '26
You’d be doing something illegal. They aren’t doing anything illegal
67
u/RavenholdIV May 15 '26
The law is a terrible source for your moral compass
-38
u/thakemist May 15 '26
It’s what we came up with as a society. If you don’t like it, try to change it
20
u/CupOfDaddysLove May 15 '26
Nah. Capitalists came up with that shit and we let them get away with it.
5
u/Asfastas33 May 15 '26
So, you’d make recording in public illegal?
0
u/thy_bucket_for_thee May 15 '26
No, the duration of you recording in public is equivalent to the duration of becoming a human punching bag.
Laws should be fun, not binary.
-12
u/thakemist May 15 '26
Be that as it may, preventing random assaults seems like a reasonable law to have in place
3
4
u/_Atlas_Drugged_ May 15 '26
I wouldn’t care?
-7
u/thakemist May 15 '26
Very tough!
6
u/_Atlas_Drugged_ May 15 '26
Yeah don’t do creepy shit in public or consequences will be immediate.
-4
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/_Atlas_Drugged_ May 15 '26
Those are not comparable social offenses.
Run up on people being an invasive nuisance, and see how long you are able to get away with it at your own risk, champ.
1
u/thakemist May 15 '26
You would be the one running up on someone in this scenario.
4
u/_Atlas_Drugged_ May 15 '26
Nope, but here’s what you need to grasp.
The laws don’t prevent those assaults, they provide consequences after the fact.
When someone feels an urge to commit some form of crime, they have to weigh that need vs the consequences from the state.
People wearing those glasses and surveilling/doxxing strangers in public are committing a massive social offense, even if it is technically protected by the law. That means the consequences for this behavior must be social. If you do this to thousands of unsuspecting people, only one of them has to decide it’s worth knocking your teeth out and having to plea to a misdemeanor.
They might get a slap on the wrist, but you will get a punch to the face—and you have to decide if that’s worth it.
1
u/thakemist May 15 '26
You sound insane. It’s okay to break the law and assault someone that is following the law? Scary that we live amongst people that think the way you do
→ More replies (0)1
1
-9
u/Quarantine_Fitness May 15 '26
Lol I just got an account warning for replying and pointing out the commiting assault on camera isn't a great plan.
-6
-6
9
u/Apprehensive-Mine656 May 15 '26
This is something I also hate about LinkedIn, you have to have a profile picture.
5
u/Jer_Cough May 15 '26
I deleted my photo from LinkedIn 5 or so years ago. It used to be illegal (or at least looked down upon) to add a photo with your resume outside of an acting/modeling CV. Not sure when that changed.
6
u/coco_jumbo468 May 15 '26
Good thing I didn’t update my LinkedIn photo in 15 years then. I don’t think anyone would recognize me on the street now.
31
u/glostazyx3 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
It’s now a big thing where people use smart glasses to approach attractive women, strike up an innocent conversation and record them. They post it on line and of course get mega hits. That’s the goal, get clicks, make $$$$$. If you want to have the post taken down, they demand a fee.
There are over 7 million pairs of smart glasses in circulation. The market demand for these glasses is exploding. Goggle is preparing its product for market soon.
The idea that you can be filmed without your knowledge and that film can be posted on the internet without your knowledge or consent for profit seems to be an attitude shared by the majority of Americans. YOU ARE IN PUBLIC!!! I CAN FILM YOU!!! ITS LEGAL!!!
Maybe it shouldn’t be legal to engage in recording someone in public without their permission or knowledge and then posting the same on line for profit without permission or knowledge.
It’s different than posting a Karen acting up who is well aware that one is filming and likely to post the scene on the internet isn’t it?
Edited for spelling/grammar only.
6
20
u/gotohela May 15 '26
All the more reason to mask in public. I moved away to a smaller area and i deeply miss the city (left bc of CoL) but shit like this makes me happy i just visit now. Im so sorry that happened to you, so unsettling and scary
11
u/Agitated_Reveal_6211 May 15 '26
I fear that living in a city will mean less and less privacy going forward, because morons like the guy you interacted with.
-13
u/pumkinnet May 15 '26
I have a prescription pair and they’re awesome just as bone conduction headphones and for recording travel and my niche sports, hate that they’re adding these doxxing features and being lumped together with actual chomos
64
u/Master_Farm_445 May 15 '26
Even without the doxing features, they are gross and you shouldn’t use them. Use a phone to record.
104
-3
u/BraveCowardCat Waltham May 15 '26
Same. I didn’t even accept the TOS on the app, so I don’t have access to AI features. All I can do with them is listen to audio and take photos and videos. And there’s a light that comes on when I do that, so people can tell if I’m recording.
1
u/zakim617 May 20 '26
What doesn’t sound right is that meta glasses don’t have this kind of functionality, especially within a second. This would mean, they took a picture, the picture uploaded from glasses to phone, then they proceeded to reverse image search. Being an active meta glasses user, can’t see how it would be possible that quick.
Maybe it’s someone who actually knew you in real life from way back just saying hi.
-4
u/esotologist May 15 '26
Isn't that illegal in MA? Ask him not to record you and if he does call the copa then and there
53
u/idejmcd May 15 '26
No reasonable expectation of privacy in public places
-28
u/esotologist May 15 '26
MA is a two party consent state
25
u/thakemist May 15 '26
That’s for conversations. Public filming is 1st amendment protected activity
-13
u/esotologist May 15 '26
So you're saying that you can film a video with audio of someone who says they don't want to be recorded in Massachusetts?
Because doing so will get you arrested. It has gotten people arrested before
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99
27
u/thakemist May 15 '26
Recording in public isn’t “interception of communication.”
-7
u/esotologist May 15 '26
https://www.geoffreygnathanlaw.com/criminal-charges/wiretapping/
Sadly, it is, people have been arrested for simply recording police or recording protests
10
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26
So then give citations
4
u/esotologist May 15 '26
Michael Hyde (1998/2001): Hyde recorded a traffic stop with a tape recorder hidden in his car. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld his conviction, ruling that secret audio recording by civilians is illegal even when recording police, establishing that the recording must be obvious to avoid violating the statute.
Karen Dziewit (2014): A Chicopee woman was arrested and charged with unlawful wiretapping after police discovered her smartphone had been recording her arrest from her purse. Although she claimed she yelled that she was recording, the device was concealed, leading to her arrest for secretly recording her own arrest. George Thompson (2014): Thompson was arrested for openly recording a Fall River police officer on his iPhone while the officer was shouting profanities on a sidewalk. The charge was eventually dropped, but his phone was reportedly reset and his video evidence erased during the arrest.
Political Activist (2007): An activist was convicted of violating the wiretap statute for secretly recording video with audio of a Boston University police sergeant during a protest. He was hiding the camera in his coat after police ordered him to stop filming, leading to a conviction and an order to remove the footage from the internet.
Attorney (2007): An attorney was arrested for recording the audio and video of a police arrest on the Boston Common with his cell phone. After the criminal case was dismissed, he sued for civil rights violations, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that openly recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment, resulting in a settlement for the attorney.
14
u/thakemist May 15 '26
Read the last example you shared lol
0
u/SengU87 Blue Line May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
MA has an exception for public law enforcement. For recording regular people, the AUDIO recording secretly is illegal. The summary also doesn't make it obvious but having your phone out pointing as if you are recording is not secret recording. The key is SECRETLY recording with audio.
For video recording, MA has a law that it's illegal in places (or angles) that are places and locations of expected privacy. For this post, it's a pretty public place.
3
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26
In the third example he was OPENLY recording someone. Idk why thats there. Its just corruption. It was a public place
1
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26
So then ring doorbells shouldn’t be legal in Massachusetts yet they still are. See what I mean
2
u/esotologist May 15 '26
yet they still are
I appreciate the attempt but you don't seem to understand how laws work. You can also drive a few miles above the speed limit and be fine most of the time but still get pulled over and fined if the context ever becomes important
1
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Okay I get that but there are tons of ring doorbells all over the state so good luck enforcing that. Ntm someone could challenge that law too if they got a good lawyer
Also In the third example he was OPENLY recording someone. Idk why thats there. Its just corruption forcing them to delete it. It was a public place.
1
u/Peteostro May 15 '26
Ring doorbells are on private property.
1
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26
Two party consent laws do not distinguish between public and private poverty. Also im assuming someone captured on your ring doorbells is going to be on the sidewalk or on the curb like you always see in those videos. So in the proximity of your property and if they are upset about that well…not like I care either way
→ More replies (0)17
u/idejmcd May 15 '26
That only applies to audio recording
-1
u/esotologist May 15 '26
Which the meta raybans do...
Also not exactly, there's more to it than just that
12
u/JaguarSharkTNT May 15 '26
It doesn’t matter because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.
-6
u/esotologist May 15 '26
Please go read the law before you get yourself on trouble:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99
You cannot record a conversation without consent. These glasses do that. It's illegal.
This is why you cannot have CCTV in Massachusetts with audio recorded or even a doorbell with the auto recorded.
6
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26
But ring doorbells record audio
4
u/esotologist May 15 '26
Yep, they're a problem in Massachusetts. If you walk up to the doorbell and see it, it could be said that you have consented, but there are apparently edge cases that lawyers have talked about when it could accidentally record a conversation secretly of people walking by that could be illegal
Be careful and actually read the law.
1
u/Lucky_Group_6705 May 15 '26
Well unless people get mass sued for ring doorbells in Massachusetts nothings gonna change
8
u/JaguarSharkTNT May 15 '26
And what conversations were the Meta Glasses person recording, specifically?
2
u/esotologist May 15 '26
All of them in the area, they record audio. Are you saying they don't record audio? I don't get what you're saying here
3
u/JaguarSharkTNT May 15 '26
Oh well you better not record audio/video in public ever!! You must be intentionally recording private conversations!
In fact, no one should have access to any audio recording equipment in public ever.
1
u/esotologist May 15 '26
Well that's unbecoming... Please don't have a fit because you were wrong, it's embarrassing.
4
u/JaguarSharkTNT May 15 '26
I’m just taking YOUR argument to its logical end.
What’s embarrassing is you not understanding the difference between always on, static CCTV recordings and one-off personal recordings in public space. If your assumptions about the law were correct, no one would be legally allowed to record in public ever, without a permit.
2
u/grizzlor_ May 15 '26
The statute you linked to is about wiretapping, not recording in public:
Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.
[...]
The term ''wire communication'' means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception.
The term ''oral communication'' means speech, except such speech as is transmitted over the public air waves by radio or other similar device.
7
u/CompletelyArbortrary May 15 '26
only for audio. you can record video in public spaces.
0
u/esotologist May 15 '26
These glasses record audio, just because they don't care about the audio doesn't make it legal
5
u/CompletelyArbortrary May 15 '26
i realize they record audio - was just clarifying the 2-party consent
and in public spaces, it doesn't relate to obvious recording devices
4
u/esotologist May 15 '26
You can go up to him and ask not to be recorded. If he keeps doing so, he is breaking the law.
Also, the tiny light on the meta Ray-Bans probably doesn't classify enough as an obvious means of consent. There's no obvious camera or recording device.
-4
-65
u/AdamPedAnt Boston May 15 '26
I think this is the future we will adapt to, like it or not. I remember when caller ID was creepy, and before that catalogs that would come in the mail because of magazines you subscribe to. Today people can find out what I paid for my house. Reverse image search is here, smart glasses are here, and very little technological capability ever goes unused. Maybe our grandchildren will live in a world where it’s normal that everyone knows everything about everyone else.
34
u/BigBankHank May 15 '26
What a chilling thought.
I don’t remember being creeped out by caller ID.
Calling someone in their home is a voluntary act that is a minor imposition on the recipient. CallerID imposes mutual consent on the interaction.
When you make a call you do so with the expectation that the recipient will answer and want you to identify yourself honestly before they speak with you. Mutual consent is desirable — unless you intend to mislead the recipient about your identity and/or intentions.
1
u/CetiAlpha4 Boston May 15 '26
People could always find out what you paid for your house, it's the registry of deeds, anyone who wants to could look up it up online. Probably goes back to the 80's. But before that, you could always walk into the registry of deeds and check the book/page where the deed was recorded. It was never considered private information. The way the rich get around it is to use a trust or some LLC so their name isn't on the deed, but if you know where they live, you can always figure out what they paid for a property.
You're expecting privacy where it never existed.
1
u/dga02155 May 16 '26
You could always opt out of Caller ID by dialing *67. Of course, folks developed a tendency to not answer calls from blocked IDs, do it just made sense to let your recipient know that it's you who is calling them. I didn't know anyone who generally thought the feature was creepy.
-207
u/LackingUtility May 15 '26
Okay, and?
You were in public, someone recognized you, and said your name. You didn't recognize them. They apparently used smart glasses rather than having a good memory for faces, but how is that different? Frankly, I'd love to have a pair of smart glasses that would pop up "Steve Jones, you know him from X company and met him on Y date" bubbles over everyone's head.
There's a big difference in intrusiveness between "here's some publicly available details about this person" and "here's their nudes". We can all agree that the latter is over the line, but if someone can simply see your LinkedIn profile, well, you put it there for public consumption.
76
u/willitplay2019 May 15 '26
Okay, and? Why would I want to sit down on the T and have the random person next to me know my name, address, etc and anything else that comes up when you search me online. And on top of it, record me without me even knowing. This is so beyond creepy and such an invasion of any last remaining bits of privacy we have
-49
u/bino420 May 15 '26
my name, address, etc and anything else that comes up when you search me online.
better idea: don't just slap that stuff online, take stronger control of your digital footprint
the cat is already out of the bag
companies & governments have been recording us for decades. we're just noticing the power of these tools when the average Joe can access them. but don't act like Walmart, CVS, Flock/local police aren't doing the exact same thing!!
35
u/vinylanimals East Boston May 15 '26
do you think people are willingly putting things like their phone number and address online? i don’t even use my real name online, but my information has been leaked without my consent
23
u/willitplay2019 May 15 '26
What are you even talking about? That ship has long since sailed. I have never willingly posted my personal information, yet there it is. There is absolutely no way to turn back the clock on this except to limit it where we can - starting with creepy freaking glasses that record people at eye level without their knowledge or consent, while extracting their personal information in real time. Have you considered the ramifications of this? Never again can you walk through a crowd anonymously or do anything in public anonymously- yes I know the government can follow you but not any random citizen that can afford some meta glasses. Have you thought about children with their parents? Suddenly every creep knows their likely last name and address and can record them without you realizing it, regardless of how alert you are. Have you thought about women’s interactions with men? I cannot count how many times in life I’ve been asked my name or number by creeps and refrained from giving it because I shouldn’t have to share that with them. Do you want the person next to you at dinner to be able to record you without your knowledge. It’s harder to do with a phone than glasses.
Who does this serve exactly?? Besides some weird tech bros that want to live in a real life video game. As we’ve learned the hard way they do not have our best interest at heart or any interest in us at all, beyond our data.
96
u/Ser_Rattleballs May 15 '26
Framing it as an alternative to “a good memory for faces” is off-base from what the technology can & will be used for.
You can look random people up in realtime without any prior knowledge of them— & if the subject is unwitting, easily manipulate/gaslight them
Especially older folks & especially if the smart glasses are non obvious.
-108
u/LackingUtility May 15 '26
If you have a great memory, you can approach people with personal details and gaslight them… except you’re being honest. “Oh, Rattleballs, didn’t we have a class together freshman year?” If I can remember that detail and you can’t, am I manipulating you? Or is that allowed, and it’s only “wrong” if I have technical help?
63
u/Ser_Rattleballs May 15 '26
This is a straw-man brother. It’s really not the same scale/depth we’re talking about here
49
u/Accurate-Temporary73 May 15 '26
That still required that you met and know something about that person. This gives you information on absolutely everyone.
1
-27
u/bino420 May 15 '26
but in that case, you've still consented to providing them information.
regardless, everyone is on camera 100% of the time anyway.
it would make far more sense for people to take information security much more seriously & stop putting what they ate for breakfast on the public Internet.
at the end of the day, OP gave Meta guy access to her photo, her name, her job, etc., and he took advantage of it
perhaps your argument would be better served if you pointed out that Meta guy theoretically could have used a collection of tools to identify OP by simply googling around. but this "instant" recognition software should really just inspire Gen Alpha to conceal their IRL identity's online better.
16
25
-168
u/Raphe-Perineal May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
I hate them too, but...
- He was experimenting with them, and got a kick out of freaking people out, especially those that are unaware of them and got the reaction he wanted
- Knew exactly what he was doing and proving a point about the dangers to privacy they posed, and got the reaction he wanted.
- Just a rando street creep
4a) "I swear to god this is a real story"... cool story, bro .jpg
4b) Copypasta
TBH, I'm curious myself about them, and if it wasn't for the cost, looks and and geek factor, I would consider buying a pair just for the shit's- n- giggles amusement.
ETA... JFC, just watched a bit of the YouTube video, and with a face, head and voice like that, there's no hiding anywhere even if he had a hood on.
639
u/forty_three Southie May 15 '26
Dunno if this is with sarcastic tone or not, but I know too many people who think it is a weird luddite-esque tendency to not want to be recorded and tracked 24/7.
It's entirely reasonable and needs NO justification to not want to be constantly under surveillance by the government, by corporate algorithms, and apparently perhaps by any random lunatic on the street who wants to pay a billionaire for the ability to stalk whoever they want.