←back to thread

509 points nullpxl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

Hi! Recently smart-glasses with cameras like the Meta Ray-bans seem to be getting more popular. As does some people's desire to remove/cover up the recording indicator LED. I wanted to see if there's a way to detect when people are recording with these types of glasses, so a little bit ago I started working this project. I've hit a little bit of a wall though so I'm very much open to ideas!

I've written a bunch more on the link (+photos are there), but essentially this uses 2 fingerprinting approaches: - retro-reflectivity of the camera sensor by looking at IR reflections. mixed results here. - wireless traffic (primarily BLE, also looking into BTC and wifi)

For the latter, I'm currently just using an ESP32, and I can consistently detect when the Meta Raybans are 1) pairing, 2) first powered on, 3) (less consistently) when they're taken out of the charging case. When they do detect something, it plays a little jingle next to your ear.

Ideally I want to be able to detect them when they're in use, and not just at boot. I've come across the nRF52840, which seems like it can follow directed BLE traffic beyond the initial broadcast, but from my understanding it would still need to catch the first CONNECT_REQ event regardless. On the bluetooth classic side of things, all the hardware looks really expensive! Any ideas are appreciated. Thanks!

Show context
dotancohen ◴[] No.46076398[source]
Interesting idea. It seems to me that most things which would need to be protected from hidden cameras would be stationary and not require the operator to mount the detectors on his body, but starting with mobile constraints is often helpful.

I would like to draw attention to this gem of wit, easily the best I've seen in a long time:

> I think the idea behind this approach is sound (actually it's light)

replies(6): >>46076448 #>>46076474 #>>46076686 #>>46076848 #>>46077052 #>>46077275 #
arionmiles ◴[] No.46076686[source]
Isn't the biggest mobile use case where you don't want to be secretly recorded in public? This was a big concern with the original Google Glass.
replies(3): >>46076753 #>>46077107 #>>46077702 #
fennecfoxy ◴[] No.46077107[source]
If I want to record you, you'd never know.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4272574802/omnivision-has-crea...

So all the people blathering about camera in public have a moot point. All the whining does is prevent the fairly obvious camera being put into devices.

But if someone wants to record you in public otherwise, they will and there's nothing you or any of us can do about it.

replies(3): >>46077175 #>>46077182 #>>46078502 #
probably_wrong ◴[] No.46077175[source]
The thing is, every beginner lockpicker makes a similar point when they realize how easy most locks are: "what's the point of locking my door if anyone can easily get in anyway?".

I think the same answers apply here: because making it harder to be casually recorded sends a clear signal that you don't want it, and now the act of recording goes from being an oversight to a deliberate, sometimes punishable act.

replies(2): >>46077242 #>>46078435 #
somethingsome ◴[] No.46077242[source]
It becomes an oversight to a deliberate act only if the recording person knows that he was detected. So that means that your anti recording glasses should signal 'no recording' in some way. Otherwise it's not really useful.. But at that point.. You can just stick a qrcode on you with the message 'no recording please look away from me'.
replies(1): >>46077283 #
1. arionmiles ◴[] No.46077283{3}[source]
I think people are getting lost in the weeds here. The idea with detection is not to prevent public recording, it's to _know_ you're being recorded so you can act accordingly.