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!
dotancohen•2h ago
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)
_ache_•2h ago
anilakar•2h ago
Counter-sniper systems that scan for reflections from optics have existed for twenty years already. These are indeed meant for static operation in military bases and other fixed installations.
arionmiles•1h ago
littlestymaar•1h ago
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.
lukan•1h ago
It will need both. Secretly recording in the public is already prohibited in many if not most jurisdictions, but ad far as I know, not really prosecuted.
hackingonempty•10m ago
fennecfoxy•44m ago
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4272574802/omnivision-has-crea...
So all the people blathering about camera in public have a moot point. All the whining does is prevent the fairly obvious camera being put into devices.
But if someone wants to record you in public otherwise, they will and there's nothing you or any of us can do about it.
probably_wrong•31m ago
I think the same answers apply here: because making it harder to be casually recorded sends a clear signal that you don't want it, and now the act of recording goes from being an oversight to a deliberate, sometimes punishable act.
somethingsome•18m ago
arionmiles•9m ago
another-dave•30m ago
It's like people listening to music without any headphones on the train — technically has been possible for ages but previously would've gotten you told to turn it off. Now it barely gets a raised eyebrow.
Can you prevent people secretly filming you? No, but most people still don't want it be become accepted behaviour, even if to you that's all just "whining and blathering".
aqme28•1h ago
october8140•53m ago
kakacik•11m ago
If not responding to polite request, closed fist at non-trivial speed aimed directly at your face is the next inevitable step against predators of any kind, non-trivial risk of losing sight due to broken glasses is part of the deal.
Your choice.
daveoc64•1m ago
I would imagine most Hacker News users live in places where recording or photography in a public place is not illegal.
Your suggestion of violence certainly isn't legal in most places!