←back to thread

Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

(github.com)
509 points nullpxl | 5 comments | 28 Nov 25 05:52 UTC | 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 ◴[28 Nov 25 07:32 UTC] 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 ◴[28 Nov 25 08:23 UTC] 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 #
littlestymaar ◴[28 Nov 25 08:34 UTC] No.46076753[source]▶
The idea of being constantly monitored by a megacorp tracking all my movements wih their swarm of cameras to feed us personalized ads is utterly dystopian indeed.

But I think the only valid way yo prevent this will be legislation though, it's not a fight individuals can win on their own.

replies(7): >>46076836 #>>46077280 #>>46077397 #>>46077506 #>>46078024 #>>46078175 #>>46079442 #
hackingonempty ◴[28 Nov 25 10:07 UTC] No.46077280[source]▶
In the USA, at least, the right to record in public is protected by the First Amendment.
replies(4): >>46077410 #>>46077732 #>>46078245 #>>46078599 #
1. littlestymaar ◴[28 Nov 25 12:56 UTC] No.46078245[source]▶
Some right to record in public may be protected by the current jurisprudence invoking the first amendment, but the first amendment itself obviously doesn't say anything about the right to record in public:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

replies(2): >>46079343 #>>46084574 #
2. delichon ◴[28 Nov 25 15:14 UTC] No.46079343[source]▶
It's a bank shot. SCOTUS has recognized that newsgathering gets some first amendment protection because "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated" (Branzburg v Hayes).
replies(1): >>46079705 #
3. littlestymaar ◴[28 Nov 25 15:52 UTC] No.46079705[source]▶
One could argue that having a contractor of US intelligence service (Google) collecting data on every citizens all the time isn't exactly “news gathering” and ought to be prevented if one wanted to abid to the spirit of the Constitution.
4. hackingonempty ◴[29 Nov 25 01:45 UTC] No.46084574[source]▶
Recording is writing, which is speech, which is protected.
replies(1): >>46086121 #
5. littlestymaar ◴[29 Nov 25 09:01 UTC] No.46086121[source]▶
“Performance is speech, murder is performance, hence murder is protected”

Fortunately it doesn't work like that.

Also not every speech is protected, you aren't allowed to leak classified info even though doing that is purely speech.