←back to thread

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

(github.com)
509 points nullpxl | 1 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 #
ajsnigrutin ◴[28 Nov 25 10:40 UTC] No.46077410[source]▶
In most eu countries, you can record in public, but gathering identifying data ("making a database") is strictly regulated, and that includes faces from those photos. You can't even point a security camera at public areas (ie. outdoor camera recording the street infront of your house), because that's enough data to make it a "database".
replies(1): >>46077432 #
circuit10 ◴[28 Nov 25 10:43 UTC] No.46077432[source]▶
You can record in public, but you can’t point cameras at public areas? That seems contradictory

Or is it the fact that it’s always recording that makes the difference or something?

replies(3): >>46077498 #>>46077537 #>>46084698 #
wongarsu ◴[28 Nov 25 11:01 UTC] No.46077537{3}[source]▶
The easier way of phrasing it is "you can't record in public, except in certain circumstances". Those certain circumstances just happen to encompass most things reasonable people want to do.

In Europe there is very much an expectation of privacy in public. But that expectation is not absolute, it competes with various other rights and public interests.

For example you can make street photography without blurred faces, because art trumps privacy in this instance. If you start making photos of individuals instead of areas then privacy wins out again and you need consent. A surveillance camera is not creating art, so it doesn't have that excuse going for it and needs a really good reason to be pointed at public areas (and "I fear someone's going to break into my private home" is generally not a good enough reason). And even if you can set up the surveillance camera, operating it requires complying with the GDPR, which has a lot to say on that topic

replies(1): >>46078597 #
1. namibj ◴[28 Nov 25 13:46 UTC] No.46078597{4}[source]▶
Note the "I fear" is treated differently if you e.g. have to remove graffiti hate speech from your front door on a weekly basis. It's just about the "you better have a concrete reason to fear, pure abstract fear won't cut it", and as always, data minimization principles do apply.