Hacker News Reader

Comment by kay_o | Hacker News Reader

Those glasses should be an actual crime everywhere.

unless perhaps you need them for accessibility reasons.

Which accessibility reasons are these?

There is a short video on the BBC website of a blind person using them to give an audible warning of uneven pavement/sidewalks in front of them.

E.g. video to speech for a blind person.

Video doesn't do speech, that's audio.

So a microphone vs a camera

Video to speech is audible narration.

They're fabulous for blind people. https://afb.org/aw/fall2025/meta-glasses-review

A camera and some rudimentary software should be a pretty good fix for color blindness. A camera and modern AI is a decent mitigation to partial or perhaps even complete blindness (prior art: Be My Eyes). A microphone, STT, and display would help with deafness.

There is no accessibility reason ever for covering up the light or recording. I will accept describing objects in FOV etc but nothing should be persistable or sent to a third party that trains on them and saves them without the consent of everyone in view, a company should build non-criminal glasses without these feature sets and have insurance pay for them.

> I will accept describing objects in FOV etc

What does covering the light has to do with the glasses in general?

I use them alone, in a glider, to help review my own flights. It gives a very helpful PoV, and I can see the instruments and where I was looking.

That should be a crime?

One of the few rare real reasons to owning and if that's the real reason. In that instance the better approach is that the glasses should be held under a permit.

The camera should be disabled until you obtain a permit.

Drones require a license and agreement to fly, these should be too.

Why wouldn’t it be the real reason? You like to assume people are lying?

Yes, it’s the real and ONLY reason I have these. When my flight is over I take them off and revert to regular shades.

Do people not lie? It's not assumption it's more a tally. I meet you at zero. I can't trust words without facts. The former of what you said builds trust.

I would hope the same that I am trusted after proven and not trusted until known.

We all should be able to trust each other but that's not case in todays world.

Then what’s the point of discussion? You claim all usages should be illegal. I give you what I think shows a valid use.

And what next? The answer is it’s not true? What’s even the point?

I am not saying that. I am saying that the glasses should be under permitted use.

You can fly a drone on your own land. You can wear meta glasses on your land. I don't give a shit about that.

What I am saying is that if you want to wear the glasses in public, get a permit otherwise the camera or any geo-tracking features should be disabled.

It should be traceable to who wears these. I don't want to be filmed in public by some creep with a hidden recording device as to the likes of public not wanting hobbyist drones flown over their head.

You may act responsibly with them and that's great, but I doubt those do. Unfortunately that drags you in to the mix and others who use them legitimately too.

Unless they who wear the glasses tell me why they're wearing the glasses I will make association that you're in the same crowd. You stated you don't, so I believe you.

It may be that a solo activity is not what the GP had in mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com