←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 #
iamnothere ◴[28 Nov 25 13:46 UTC] No.46078599[source]▶
Private businesses, however, can choose to refuse service for any reason as long as it’s not discriminatory. If enough businesses collaborated to create a “no camera glasses” policy, people might be less likely to buy them. This could keep the market small.

Perhaps a good approach would be to pressure businesses about this. Frankly they probably don’t want pervasive recording of their employees anyway.

replies(2): >>46078830 #>>46078925 #
amitav1 ◴[28 Nov 25 14:14 UTC] No.46078830[source]▶
I highly doubt that businesses will take a stand against these camera glasses. The kind of people that buy these smart glasses are usually a) wealthy, and b) not very frugal. What business would want to turn away the people with lots of money?
replies(3): >>46078982 #>>46080282 #>>46082973 #
1. astura ◴[28 Nov 25 14:32 UTC] No.46078982{3}[source]▶
Plus the footage goes on social media as free advertising.