This is for self-defense. Not that I live in a country where they (officially) ship, but just in case…

Regarding “how to tell them apart from regular glasses”, this question is mainly about Ray-Ban Blayzer Optics:

Ray-Ban Blayzer Optics glasses

Ray-Ban Scriber Optics:

Ray-Ban Scriber Optics glasses

And Ray-Ban Display:

Ray-Ban Display glasses

Because these are by far the hardest to identify. Other glasses either have a clearly visible “RayBan” text in the top left corner (which for the pictured ones isn’t clearly visible) or can be identified just by their style.

  • printf("%s", name);@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    I share your anger and frustration, but, as much as I hate revisionism, try lobbying instead of getting yourself locked up. I managed to convince my freaking COUNTY to add a phrase about banning smart glasses on hospital grounds “simply” by explaining the situation to them. A lot of the inspiration I got from: https://banray.eu/en/

    • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      God fucking damn it. I was so excited for stuff like this to come out so I could finally have a real life HUD, maybe a Crazy Taxi arrow showing the direction I should be heading, and of course it turns into a weaponised dystopia product before I can even begin to afford one.

      Edit : my frustration was after reading your link. Good job to you for getting shit done about it! Had to make a quick edit there the tone looked wrong.

      • printf("%s", name);@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Nah, no need for edits and explanations. I get it. I too wished it could’ve been something awesome, perhaps localized, but alas. It’s like

        nsfw

        rule 34

        but for data brokers: if it exists, there is a way to farm data with it.

    • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Wow, nice. I wish I had the determination and social skills to complain to the right people effectively.

  • lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Destroying private property in public might work against you despite the obvious invasion of privacy.

    No idea if it works, but might i suggest a magnet of some kind?

    • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Won’t work, until we talk about a full blown emp here.

      Instead, how about the social angle: pull out a camera, and point it at their face. Then when they get angry, you can claim self defense.

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    You want us to tell you how to assault someone, break their glasses, and claim self defence?

      • toofpic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Good luck providing those links in the court. It is just one level more sane than mentioning voices in your head.

        • printf("%s", name);@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          https://banray.eu/en/

          The problem is not proving in court how unethical these are. There is plenty of proof and knowledge of that, even among authorities.

          The problem is, people don’t care and the manufacturers know exactly how to play these people.

          What would actually not hold up in court is the matter of proportionality. There isn’t a single juror or judge that would buy OP’s interpretation that invasion of privacy merits destruction of property.

          • toofpic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            12 hours ago

            I’m not saying anything about proving something about the glasses. If you attack someone and break their property, the court will be about this first, and what that property was will be secondary. Don’t attack people, wven if they are assholes. Personal privacy crimes are not felony territory in most countries, assault is

      • crimson_iris@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Most legal systems will require you to prove that the other person had ability, opportunity and intent to cause you actual physical harm, and that you used minimal, necessary and proportional force. Someone recording you in public doesn’t get you anywhere near that.

        • Lucy :3@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Assuming we’re operating at legal level here, not at ethical level. Which is a factor everyone decides for themselves.

      • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Hate to break it to you, but we’ve had similar covert visual recording devices for quite a while.

        They’re called eyes, and they’re connected to a neural network cloud in your head. If you haven’t experienced negative results from these by now, you probably aren’t important enough to be effected by the new Meta version.