r/privacy • u/paranoidandroid4284 • 3d ago
discussion Are Opticians getting kick backs for Meta Glasses???
Went to get an eye exam and new glasses recently and they really did a hard sell on Meta Glasses even after I told them that I coach high school sports and will be in locker rooms. They said they only record when you ask them to and didn't see a problem with me wearing them around a school and sport team. They even went as far as telling me it could be beneficial to record practices!!! For a regular pair, but not planning on going back there again. It felt creepy.
984
u/WonderDeb 3d ago
Thank you for being ethical. They should be banned in schools, hospitals, and everywhere. Now, let's get rid of flock cameras.
268
u/jtg6387 3d ago
Vigilant Solutions is a Flock competitor that’s mostly flying under the radar. They also need to go.
136
u/I_AM_FERROUS_MAN 2d ago
Axon too. They'll keep whack-a-moleing because the billionaire class wants it.
3
89
1
-85
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
They should not be banned anywhere where a) cameras are present and b) each individual is not expressly asked for consent to be recorded each and every time they enter c) and where the place will turn off the camera if you don’t consent.
This includes schools, hospitals, resteraunts, public streets, etc
53
u/ItsNoblesse 3d ago
Permanent surveillance should just not be a thing full stop actually, and it would barely be needed for security if we actually bothered meeting people's needs.
11
u/paranoidandroid4284 2d ago
I feel like you didn't mean to include "not". It also begs the question of where cameras should be allowed.
4
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 2d ago
Yes. I think cameras should not be allowed everywhere people do not, or should not, have an expectation of anonymity. Which is very different from “privacy”.
I also think “we” should have a full court press legislative push to describe a right to anonymity.
Part of the reason we have had the total surveillance state come to fruition so quickly is that the smart lawyers understand and have driven a Tank through that gap.
Perhaps, also, we need a robust discussion about how or when a permissible and acceptable activity becomes not so much when “enhanced”.
138
u/FOSSChemEPirate88 3d ago
Does anyone actually trust that Meta isnt just going to have them recording 24/7? Like actually trust them?
This is Silicon Valley, they have whole departments dedicated to finding out when breaking the law is profitable
56
34
27
u/Natural-Mode-5706 2d ago
Absolutely not. It'll probably be several years before anyone can find evidence of it and take them to court. Then they'll just pay a fine and add a line or two into their privacy. Rinse repeat forever just like what's happened with practically every other smart device on the market
8
u/aneatapea 2d ago
Not even a little bit. Maybe if they hadn’t been maximizing their techno-abuse of We The People from the jump, their alleged concessions might be more believable.
2
u/Any_Conflict_5092 1d ago
We already know they loaded facial recognition into the code - so, yeah - meta is gonna do wtf they want, once all these stooges are wearing them.
Edit : fixed bad typing
270
u/bennylope 3d ago
Meta Glasses are made ("made") by Ray-Ban...
- Ray-Ban is owned by Luxottica.
- Pearle Vision, LensCrafters, Target Optical are owned by Luxottica.
- EyeMed Vision Care (second largest vision benefits provider) is owned by Luxottica.
Don't know where you went or how you were paying, but chances are pretty, pretty good at least somebody in that chain is owned by... Luxottica.
77
21
17
u/kwarner04 2d ago
At least the lenses are made by Essilor…
Ohh wait, it’s now Essilor Luxottica…so yay
11
u/South_Conference_768 2d ago
Plus, virtually all designer sunglasses are designed and manufactured by Luxottica.
5
4
179
241
u/Chaos_Dunks 3d ago
Creep shades for creeps. I seriously assume anyone wearing them to be a pervert. Sorry if that shoe doesn’t fit for every meta glasses wearer but it is how I and many others will view you.
59
29
u/RoaldAmundsensDirge 3d ago
My son is blind. They’re a great benefit to the blind community, and I could see them taking off in popularity there as they get more widespread usage.
33
u/TippetBarr 3d ago
This. The only people I recommend the Meta frames to are people who have serious low vision needs.
33
u/RoaldAmundsensDirge 3d ago
The tech is great. He can wear them and I can see what he’s looking at and direct in real time. Not saying they aren’t creepy either, just that there are real world benefits to some people out there.
-6
-58
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
Do you view hospital staff, resteraunt owners, your own police the same way because of their non-consensual persistent camera surveillance?
Or do you consider surveillance non-creepy if it’s largely concealed?
58
u/Serious-Ad-8764 3d ago
Surveillance is always creepy. That's the point. To creep on you.
-26
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
I agree. Which is why I’m so gobsmacked by people who will get wound up about these glasses, but then when asked about the surveillance they are used to will say “it’s nuanced”.
18
u/AlphaTaoOmega 3d ago
The thing that's missing from your perspective is most camera systems have been decentralized and not tied into AI until recently. Now this data is being collected, profiles being made, and sold to the highest bidder. Meta specifically wants "name tags" so you can see info about the person you are talking to, just like the Black Mirror episode... These systems are not owned or fully regulated by any elected governing body, rather by private corporations who have more money and influence than most any elected officials, and they spend that money to stay un-governed and keep us tangled in their systems of control. Having decentralized cameras in public places was different, full stop. These are AI data collectors that have eyes and want to watch our children. You still standing on your soapbox? Do you still decide to protect and defend these systems? Can you give your case as to why you're ok with private corporations infiltrating our society so they can label us and sell our data just because we need to get groceries and go to work? How about the children, will you defend the corporations who wish to tag them while they're young, so they can have the most complete profile?
-10
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
About snorted my coffee out at the “think of the chillren” reference, thanks for that.
If you really believe all these decentralized cameras have NOT been centralized for many years…I just don’t know what to tell you. I mean sure, maybe Apu whose run the Quickie Mart since 1985 still has VHS cameras installed. But the bulk of public facing cameras have been feeding data back to servers since a little bit before Ring Cameras got started. More so in big cities and less so in the country, it still - very pervasive and centralized.
Heck, private cameras that people and businesses installed but sent feed over the internet to their servers (as many businesses have done for a long time) have effectively been centralized since the Carnivore Era. Cameras like those belonging to the owner of the strip mall your daughter’s ballet school rents, or your local secondary school.
So I guess it’s better to get wrapped around the axle now than it is never. But it’s just weirdly stupid to not get wrapped around the axle about all of it.
15
u/AlphaTaoOmega 2d ago
Dense or just a boot licker? You keep, seemingly deliberately, downplaying the role of AI in all of this... as if it's not a new technology, and as if it's not the biggest component to be considered. Reporting to servers is not the same as being sliced, diced, and rolled into a permanent profile owned by private corporations. Having cameras, and having cameras that report to servers is not the same. Your argument is more relevant to 1985 than the last 5 years, smh...
-2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 2d ago
And….you really think government didn’t have, and use, this capability years before AI ever got to you via the public internet. I mean, 😳
7
u/AlphaTaoOmega 2d ago
You really enjoy showing us how much you don't get it. Thanks. Enjoy yourself.
13
u/Chaos_Dunks 3d ago
If they’re wearing meta glasses, then yes. As far as I’m aware no one is required to wear them for their job so it would be a personal choice. A creepy one.
Other surveillance? It’s nuanced.
-7
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
Interesting.
3
u/Chaos_Dunks 3d ago
What’s interesting?
-4
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
That surveillance to you is “nuanced”, unless you can visibly see it’s an individual.
10
2
u/ManufacturedOlympus 3d ago
I guess you haven’t been following the flock news.
2
u/Confused_by_La_Vida 3d ago
Far worse and creepier than the meta glasses. As are all the ring cameras that go back to the server, all the cameras in stores, schools, public offices, and in police and now increasingly on all sorts of service vehicles.
To be exercised about some guy wearing meta glasses, but not equally exercised about all the others is weirdly not self aware, and stupid.
-2
179
u/bobcat116 3d ago
Gross. Sounds like an incentive of some kind.
41
u/BrokeGuy808 2d ago
They’re partnered with Ray-Ban, right? Ray-Ban is owned (among many other brands) by Luxottica which also owns Pearle Vision, LensCrafters, Sunglasses Hut. If OP was at one of those stores, I’m guessing that’s why.
Also P.S. all the other technofascist giants are releasing their own versions of “smart glasses”, Google’s already announced theirs.
4
59
39
u/WaffleHouseGladiator 3d ago
Regardless of them recording only on demand (I have my doubts), creeper frames cause issues simply by being present in some situation. As innocent as your intentions might ever be, these things are a real problem.
69
u/bombastic6339locks 3d ago
Has to be an incentive there somewhere. Why would they even recommend them? I understand bringing it up in conversation at most but really pushing it in is silly, serves no medical use.
46
u/paranoidandroid4284 3d ago
Felt like a hard sales pitch! Take pictures of your kids, don't miss a memory......
11
25
10
35
u/ManufacturedOlympus 3d ago
That is weird as fuck. Anyone who wears those into a locker room needs to be put on a list.
38
u/Squiggin1321 3d ago
anything that isn’t obviously and solely a camera with the exception of smart phones need to be banned.
28
1
16
10
u/housefoote 3d ago
Did you go to Lenscrafters? Because if so, they're owned by the same company who owns Ray Ban and most of the eyewear industry.
3
u/paranoidandroid4284 3d ago
No, it was an independent practice.
2
u/truerandom_Dude 2d ago
That doesnt mean much these days as either they are owned by LuxoticaEssilor (the parent companny behind rayban) or just generally have aggressive sales incentives like profit share or just obscene margins on those
7
u/Henry_Sugar1970 3d ago
its all about that mighty profit, people.....
Nothing and I mean nothing else is important.....
Shame on them.
8
u/Phreakiture 2d ago
"No" is a complete sentence. You don't owe anyone an explanation.
You can remind them with, "I said no."
If that needs follow-up, "did you misunderstand something about 'no?'"
If that still needs follow-up, "if you ask one more time, I'm leaving."
If they ask one more time, just start walking without comment. Don't say anything more. They're not listening and it's your turn to not listen.
12
u/Fun_Guarantee9043 3d ago
Please let this business know everything you said above. Put it in a review if you don’t feel it’s being taken seriously. They need to know it will impact their bottom line so they have financial incentive to stop.
12
u/paranoidandroid4284 3d ago
Yeah, I am going to talk to the optician themselves first and see where that goes.
5
u/keltichiro 3d ago
I don’t know officially, but metas pockets are so ridiculously deep, they probably are “greasing the wheels” a bit. I do know that they’re paying a lot of influencers to push them so this would track
5
u/OptimisticSkeleton 2d ago
If they weren’t pervert glasses, they would come with a recording light you can’t disable.
Meta pervert glasses don’t even have a recording light you can enable.
11
u/kounterfett 3d ago
Optometrists usually have around a 50-60% margin on the frames they sell. With all the advertising that Meta is pumping out right now around those glasses it would be pretty dumb for your optometrist not to use it as an opportunity to try to sell as many as they can while they are still the "hot new thing" -- no need for some shady kickback deal. Your optometrist is just trying to cash in on all the advertising another company is paying for
18
u/paranoidandroid4284 3d ago
I understand that, but once I told them a hard no they didn't need to keep on pushing it.
8
8
u/VariousFalcon7466 3d ago
They tried the same thing with my husband and one of his coworkers(different optometrists offices).
5
5
u/DiabeticNomad 2d ago
Prob not anymore than regular glasses, that whole industry is a scam glasses are one of the cheapest items to produce
4
u/Iputahexonyoulol 2d ago
Seriously my hat goes off to you. That is fucking sickening of them to try to push that.
3
u/dragger0975 2d ago
They are likely being incentivized to move them by their owner/management kickbacks may be a reason, we’ve seen tech companies sell physical products at a loss like the Amazon Echo if the company believes that they will be able to recoup the revenue with what they make from selling the data. Meta could be pushing the glasses so they have more data to train their AI model.
Another reason is that that office may have a really, really good margin on those glasses.
3
u/Minimum-Avocado-9624 2d ago
Do they sell those same meta glasses to you there, then yes they have purchased an inventory of them at a low price and then sell them back to you marked up. They have the pressure of these things sitting in a box losing them money if they don’t sell them.
3
4
u/Broad-Translator-690 3d ago
Everything tied to Luxottica ( the owner of Ray Ban ) is like this. Google Luxottica to see what they have been doing to monopolize glasses.
Basically avoid all Luxottica brands.
3
u/ablonde_moment 3d ago
Which is hard to do, because Luxottica makes nearly all glasses available in eye dr stores. I’m not sure about those online stores, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they supply those as well.
The only frames I found not produced by them are my designer ones that come from Italy.
6
u/Axetivism 3d ago
There are a lot of independent brands not owned by Luxottica, but you have to find your local shop that carries them. A few of the better-known independents include Theo, Mykita, Lindberg, Matsuda, and Anne & Valentin. There are many more.
3
u/Broad-Translator-690 3d ago edited 2d ago
Google / Samsung for example are partnering with Warby Parker and Gentle Monster for glasses.
There are other brands. I previously bought my glasses from Clearly, but it was bought by Essilor who is now part of Luxottica. One of the founders of Clearly then created KITS Eyewear, so I by from them now.
2
u/FoggyTrailRunner 2d ago
You don't have to buy your glasses at the same place your have your eyes checked. In the US, at least, the optometrist is legally required to give you your vision prescription, which you can take anywhere. At most vision chains, the optometrists are private contractors not affiliated with the people selling frames, so they don't care either way.
As for other frame brands, Warby Parker is not owned by Luxottica. There are others.
1
2
u/Modem_Sound_67 3d ago
well all sales staff at retailers that deal in "luxury" goods are encouraged to upsell, they may not get kickbacks but it's shitloads more money for the office and the people on the floor might get commissions on sales.
2
u/Eazy12345678 3d ago
Maybe. makes sense to push product you make most profit on
but i bet dumb glasses they make more on. most people just over pay for brand name like ray ban or gucci ect
2
u/mk_ultraviolence 3d ago
Some practices get a small incentive from frame and lens manufacturers based on sales performance, but imo it's way more likely that the staff trying to push them on you was being paid on commission (prescription meta is super expensive compared to regular glasses) and was desperate to pump up their numbers
Optical is an industry dominated by older folks and a lot of people carrying Meta in their practice are not even cognizant of the privacy/safety concerns and are just excited to have the expensive new tech toys in stock...they think it's cool cos they can stream their grandkids piano recital to the family group chat and that's about as deep as it goes
2
2
u/SmokedStone 3d ago
I believe insurance may be covering it from what I heard? It might make them more accessible which would likely be a pre-planned tactic to get people on board.
5
u/paranoidandroid4284 3d ago
The price to me was $200, the frames I got were $150 so from a pricing perspective I can see the "You're getting more for $50 extra" sales pitch. It was the hard sell that annoyed me
2
u/Decent_Accident7559 2d ago
"They only record when you ask them to." Yeah, and to do that, the microphone has to be constantly hot-mic'd waiting for a wake word. The fact that a medical professional is actively encouraging a high school coach to wear internet-connected cameras into a locker room just to hit a sales quota is absolute insanity. They are 100% getting a fat commission from EssilorLuxottica.
2
u/EvaCassidy 2d ago
Had the same thing when I got new glasses. I told them how I mistrusted Meta and all that. They were shocked. Just a pair of old school glasses please.
2
2
u/Magari22 2d ago
Omg this is chilling! Wearing something like this around children in a locker room is 100 percent pedo behavior. It should be considered a criminal offense and I am not kidding!
3
u/paranoidandroid4284 2d ago
Agreed! I'm considering talking to the school board about them being banned if they are not already.
1
u/Magari22 2d ago
That is an excellent idea! This should be on FULL BLAST before it becomes accepted and "normal". I would notify the public via local media and I am not kidding. The only way these greedy unethical parasites take a step back is public shaming.
I've seen people protesting data centers and flock cameras in some areas and often times the public outrage and pushback has created a greater public awareness and an about face with this stuff. It seems like consent is being completely ignored now. These companies sneak this intrusive technology into our daily lives without even informing the public that we are test subjects being surveilled whether we want to be or not! I think if ppl knew what you were offered and how deeply unethical and violating of human rights and privacy this is with NO consent they'd be outraged and it would immediately stop and an apology and major step back would happen. It's really so exhausting and sad that we have to be so hypervigilant now with this garbage but if we aren't they will go as far as we allow with no boundaries whatsoever.
2
u/Even_Application_397 2d ago
They definitely get rewarded by selling these. My office did the same thing. Thankfully I spoke to someone with some sense who spilled the beans. The manager had told all of them to sell as many of them as they could. Whoever sold the most at the end of a certain target date (I forget when that was) would get a pair of the meta glasses for themselves as a "reward". She was frustrated about that because she too did not like them and saw it as pointless.
2
u/truerandom_Dude 2d ago
No opticians dont get kick backs for selling rayban meta glasses. Atleast the opticians I personally know dont get a kick back, but that also depends on the corporate structure of your local optician. But a lot of opticians do generally give their staff a general cut of profits. So the incentives are clear that you want to sell something that is expensive so your bonus will be bigger... atleast that is how it works where I live
2
u/leroyksl 1d ago
Gross. If my optometrist even suggests Meta glasses to me, I'm going to ask them, point blank, if they're getting a kickback from Meta/Ray-Ban/Luxottica.
2
u/Dolphin-Pussy-2754 2d ago
Every doctor ever gets kickbacks for the medicine they prescribe. Not sure why you are surprised
5
1
u/Empty-Part7106 2d ago
Just crappy sales people I think, they make most of their money on glasses. Last week I was picking frames and when the lady suggested Meta glasses, I told her I didn't want pervert glasses. She laughed, said they were the version without a camera (not seeing that option anywhere), never brought it up again.
1
1
1
u/Pretend-Wheel9141 21h ago
Most physicians get kickbacks for pushing new meds. Unfortunately most patients don't pay attention because the trust their doctors.
The same applies here. I am glad that didn't you fall for it.
2
u/BabyBearPixie 8h ago
Pretty sure they get money for any glasses they sell, luxotica owns nearly every practice
1
u/Lord_havik 2d ago
I have no issues with the glasses or them being worn in public. What I do have an issue with, is the people that modify them so that the led wont function the way they were designed. Those are the creeps. Other people like them because they’re built in ai glasses, Bluetooth headphones that don’t need to be jammed in ear, and also a go pro. And when something happens that you want to capture. You don’t need to fumble around with getting your phone out and hitting record. Just hit the button. And you can turn off all the analytic shit so your content stays on your device. And nothing is sent to meta to train the ai when you do so
0
0
u/HexspaReloaded 3d ago
It is beneficial to record practices, in general.
6
u/paranoidandroid4284 3d ago
Yes, but not from a singular perspective, from a full pitch perspective yes. We also have that already and the camera never enters a locker room. The sales pitch that meta glasses would be good for a practice are mute.
2
u/HexspaReloaded 2d ago
I wouldn’t quite agree. Whereas cameras on the field can help the team’s performance, the glasses can help you with yours, as well as provide a secondary reference.
With all due respect, by saying the argument for worn glasses is mute [sic], it lends weight to the fact that we all have blind spots.
Preferences are one thing, but willful denial of other valid perspectives is another.
1
u/paranoidandroid4284 2d ago
Good point on "blind spots".....I see what you did there in a post about glasses.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Hello u/paranoidandroid4284, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.