'Zuckoff' App Detects Meta Smartglasses, as Meta Plans Camera-Free Version, Loses Money, and Offers Social Media Subscriptions (nypost.com)
- Reference: 0185676460
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/09/17/045246/zuckoff-app-detects-meta-smartglasses-as-meta-plans-camera-free-version-loses-money-and-offers-social-media-subscriptions
- Source link: https://nypost.com/2026/09/10/business/new-zuckoff-app-detects-nearby-meta-perv-glasses-right-to-at-least-know-that-someone-is-recording/
> A new app called Zuckoff can detect if a user is near someone with Meta's creepy AI-powered glasses, which have drawn criticism for [2]enabling creeps to record video of women without their consent. Programmer Pawel Szydlowski says tales of dirtbags recording themselves perving on women or harassing strangers prompted him to launch the app...
>
> Zuckoff — which detects Bluetooth signatures broadcast by smart glasses and can estimate their distance — has gained some 5,000 users since it hit Apple's App Store last month, [3]according to Business Insider . "There's a need for such an application," the 30-year-old Polish techie told the outlet, adding that European Union regulators have contacted him for more info about his app. "We as a society have the right to at least know that someone is recording," Szydlowski said...
>
> Earlier this month, the tech giant disabled thousands of glasses it found had been tampered with to keep a small light off that indicates the device is recording.
It's already [4]#77 on the iPhone's list of best-selling utilities apps.
In a related story, "After accusations of selling 'perv glasses,' Meta prepares to sell a pair without a camera," [5]writes TechCrunch , citing a report from [6]The Information .
> The glasses include six built-in microphones so users can communicate with the chatbot, as well as a button on the side of the glasses that, when pressed, activates the AI system... Meta's Reality Labs, which is responsible for developing its smart glasses line, is [7]still losing a gargantuan amount of money, as its earnings report from April revealed.
In fact, Meta stock is off 13% over the last 12 months, [8]reports Yahoo Finance . So Tuesday Meta announced subscription services for its social apps as "part of Meta's push to drive additional revenue from the billions it's investing in AI data centers and model development."
> The plans, which start at $2.99 per month for single-product plans, $7.99 for individual bundles, and $14.99 for creator and business bundles, provide a number of features for users looking to get more out of their Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp accounts. [9]Instagram Plus and [10]Facebook Plus allow users to keep their stories up for 48 hours instead of 24, send animated super reactions and super hearts to stories, preview stories without showing up as a viewer in other users' lists, and more. [11]WhatsApp Plus lets you share exclusive stickers, get exclusive ringtones for contacts, and pin up to 20 different chats.
>
> Meta One also includes Core and Premium user plans that offer the features found in the single-product plans, along with increased AI usage limits for images and videos. The social media giant is also offering creator and business plans... that it says include capabilities such as enhanced profiles, automatic follow invitations to users that interact with your content, and increased access to the Meta Business Agent, which can respond on your behalf.
When Instagram head Adam Mosseri [12]announced on Threads that the plans brought "more features and more AI across Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Meta AI," writer [13]Joe Hill drew 13,300 likes for [14]his response . "That's sweet--so pay a fee, get more AI, pay nothing, get a little less AI. Can we work out a deal where you pay ME and I get no AI at all?"
[1] https://nypost.com/2026/09/10/business/new-zuckoff-app-detects-nearby-meta-perv-glasses-right-to-at-least-know-that-someone-is-recording/
[2] https://nypost.com/2026/04/14/business/metas-pervert-glasses-fuel-trend-of-creeps-filming-women-posting-videos-online/
[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/zuckoff-app-detects-meta-ai-smart-glasses-recording-privacy-2026-9
[4] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/zuckoff/id6795234035
[5] https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/16/after-accusations-of-selling-perv-glasses-meta-prepares-to-sell-a-pair-without-a-camera/
[6] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/meta-launch-camera-free-smart-glasses-amid-mounting-privacy-concerns
[7] https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/29/meta-is-still-burning-money-on-ar-vr/
[8] https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/article/meta-launches-meta-one-subscriptions-as-it-seeks-to-better-monetize-ai-spending-151014668.html
[9] https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-instagram-plus
[10] https://www.facebook.com/help/1437311881513288?cms_platform=iphone-app&helpref=platform_switcher
[11] https://www.whatsapp.com/whatsapp-plus
[12] https://www.threads.com/@mosseri/post/DdUI1VfG_42
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill_(writer)
[14] https://www.threads.com/share/DyDiCfHFy/
Is this really what people will pay for? (Score:5, Interesting)
"keep their stories up for 48 hours instead of 24, send animated super reactions and super hearts to stories, preview stories without showing up as a viewer in other users' list"
Surely, they have some kind of data that says someone will pay for this, right? Is this really what people can't wait to hand over money to Facebook for? Super Reactions? "Exclusive" stickers and ringtones? I'd love to hear from someone that actually pays for that kind of stuff and what they are really getting out of it - because I REALLY don't get it.
Re: Is this really what people will pay for? (Score:2)
Probably the same people who buy the glasses.
Re: (Score:3)
People are weird. Discord has done this for years with their Nitro subscription. I imagine it makes the people who buy it feel special because they have access to features the free users cannot. Twitch has some similar features too, although I think there you're subscribing to the actual channels and Twitch themselves take a cut.
I mean, people pay for costmetic items in games just to look different from other players, so, yes, people will absolutely pay for this stuff. I imagine a lot of those people will b
Re: (Score:2)
> People are weird. Discord has done this for years with their Nitro subscription. I imagine it makes the people who buy it feel special because they have access to features the free users cannot.
Uh, I'm pretty sure that's standard psy-op marketing 101 for ALL "premium" experience upgrades regardless of product or service.
People aren't as weird as selling addictive FOMO as some kind of good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling it isn't weird if it makes money...which it does, hand over fist.
*Buying* it is totally bizarre to me, but I can't deny people do.
Re: (Score:2)
That "Nitro" stuff makes zero sense rationally. My guess is pure appeal to vanity.
Re: (Score:2)
> That "Nitro" stuff makes zero sense rationally. My guess is pure appeal to vanity.
If you're vain enough to want to stand out with exclusive emojis or animated whatevers, then spending money on a Nitro subscription makes rational sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually pay for Nitro. There is only one feature that I want, and its to be able to stream at a decent quality. I have friends scattered all over the world who also use discord. Almost everyday I'm streaming something on discord, so its worth it to me just for the streaming quality improvement. I'd love a cheaper option without all the rest of nitro, that stuff doesn't make any sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not part of that dark corner of the Internet, so I don't really know why anyone would pay (or use for free) any of this shit. However, in gaming, there is a concept of "whale". A tiny minority of player would pay serious money for any advantage. This is typically seen as P2W (pay to win) but it can fund a small dev team. Back in the day I played a niche MMO, I recall a player that allegedly dropped $100K on the game. To me, this is crazy.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, there are quite a few crazy people with money.
Re: (Score:1)
It can get a lot crazier than that. [1]This [cbsnews.com] guy embezzled a bunch of money and spent about a million of it on a shitty mobile game.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/embezzler-1-million-video-game-of-war-app-purchases/
Re: (Score:2)
That is crazy! Decades ago, I had a friend who was playing a text based MMO (before they were called that) who told me that items had sold for over $10k. Crazy then, crazy now.
I guess if you have s*tloads of cash lying around, using it to fund a studio that makes a game you like could make sense. Sort of. But at that point, it seems to me it would make far more sense to invest $100k in the company, and then just ask for the item.
Re: (Score:1)
Our previous conversation was "closed".
So some answer to your CPC misconception ... which is off topic here.
a) 100 million of a bit more than a billion party members is a lot. It is around 10%.
b) in Germany not even 1 out of 80 is a member of a party. That is roughly 1%
c) in the US: parties have no real members
d) membership in the CPC is not "invite only" - you have to apply and do party work, like preparation of elections and counting of votes or other stuff, to be finally accepted
No idea where you get you
Re: (Score:3)
There was a player in EVE Online, who bulled his "guild mates" into helping him to get stuff he needed to build a super carrier. I think he got actually the first one of that type in game - not sure about that.
He sunk several 10k USD into it, in in-game currency to get what he wanted. As he was a general dickhead, when he made one of his first flights, perhaps even the first flight, he got "kicked from guild".
The whole universe was invited to kill him. I think the server crashed when 10k players where in th
Re: (Score:3)
There will be plenty of people who think it's super cool for reasons that won't make sense to you. Or me, for that matter, but we aren't the target audience and shouldn't expect to get why the target audience will enjoy it.
A bunch of psycho tech bros (Score:2)
Want to get us all wearing glasses because we'd be walking around creating a surveillance network. Americans don't like the idea of the government running a surveillance Network so we're building our surveillance Network with Private industry and then the government taps into it with private contracts.
Americans have this weird thing where they don't care how much they are oppressed or how much the boot is on their neck as long as it's a privately owned boot. The idea of that the billionaire is getting t
Re: (Score:2)
Sneaky sneaky. That spy mode could be worth it for some people.
This is a weird little hit piece (Score:3, Insightful)
The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common, nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone. The phrase "We, as a society" is never going to end well, either. Don't try to coopt me into your vision of what everybody needs to do.
You are right (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct term is Privacy Rapist, pervert glasses is just polite euphemism.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps the app could be extended to FlockOff, another privacy rapist, now that the code and EMBEDDED PASSWORD has been hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
The two different terms you used kind of look like they apply to different things. "Privacy rapist" appears to refer to the person using the product, but "pervert glasses" appears to refer to the product itself. (Maybe you wanted to call the computer a privacy rapist, but I'm going to ass/u/me that you wanted the more mainstream usage of calling the perv who uses the computer a privacy rapist. Please complain if I got this wrong. I only bring up this pedantry, because I want to distinguish computers from th
Re: (Score:2)
A-fucking-men.
I wish we could moderate the comments of stories where we also comment, because I'd be happy to give you a point for pointing out the idiotic idea of getting angry at a tool compared to getting angry at the person using the tool for the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
> How about "Mass surveillance in China"?
see [1]whataboutism [britannica.com]
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/whataboutism
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Can you show me the data that what you claim is an actual fact?
So many people are overreacting to things that are quite innocuous but could - COULD! - be used in a negative light. What about binoculars? Or the camera on every cell phone on the planet? Spy cams have been around for decades, yet nobody seems to be worked up about those, either. It's another example of people seeing some sort of technology they dislike, making a thinly-veiled case for why it's "bad", and other people blindly followin
Re: (Score:1)
> It amazes me that every time some new technology is invented so many people automatically think of how it could be used in the worst way instead of how it benefits mankind as a whole.
That's the thing with these glasses: there is no legitimate use. The primary purpose is to conceal the fact that you are recording video. When could that possibly "benefit mankind as a whole"?
Re: (Score:3)
Like 90% of everthying has no "legitimate use", when viewed through a certain, um "lens" - besides maybe provide entertainment and enjoyment for some small fraction of the population. So that is not a legitimate argument against something.
Re: (Score:2)
> That's the thing with these glasses: there is no legitimate use. The primary purpose is to conceal the fact that you are recording video. When could that possibly "benefit mankind as a whole"?
It's a hands-free camera, which should be enough to make it a legitimate use. Unless you think there's no legitimate uses for hands-free cameras, like GoPros or police body cams?
Re: (Score:2)
> Researchers Show How Meta's 'Pervert Glasses' Are Used to Harass Women
> A new study shows how pickup artist influencers use smart glasses to create content, and the connection between covert recording and harm.
> The researchers compiled a dataset of 350 Instagram videos posted between September 2023 and March 2026.
[1]https://www.404media.co/meta-r... [404media.co]
[1] https://www.404media.co/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses-pov-instagram-pickup-artists/
Re: (Score:2)
That's just proof that there are people that use it in ways the rest of society deem unacceptable, not that "an overly large proportion of them are creeps" like Tablizer originally claimed. I know people who own the glasses (I personally don't) and don't try to create content by using them in the same manner as the few sleazeballs out there.
I think my point has been made: for some reason, a lot of people want to claim the glasses are somehow inherently "bad" because they can point out a few people using t
Re: (Score:2)
The glasses introduce a certain amount of deniability that spy cameras or walking around with a cell phone in 'record position' do not have. ("I'm not spying, I'm using this for navigating")
If these glasses become more common, then 'creepers' will become much more common.
It's not unlike the uproar over Flock cameras. Yes, you could record license plates before, but when they become ubiquitous, it's a qualitatively different thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, guys are absolutely following women around and recording them without their consent. Yes, they *could* do it with a phone, but it's a lot easier with some glasses. Perv glasses have, seemingly, opened up a whole new 'market' of pervs who now want to record women without their knowledge.
We've had it in mainstream media (eg. the BBC/ITV) that some perv with these glasses on talked to some woman on a beach. She was lightly dressed, and the conversation was polite and convivial on both sides, but the recor
Re: (Score:2)
Oh don't be a dick.
Just because we're supporting women on this point doesn't mean men are losing out on anything. And if men find themselves being tormented online as a result of a seemingly benign conversation on a beach, then yes, I'd imagine some outrage would also be forthcoming.
Either way, the glasses have no use besides being a perv. As such, we don't need 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
> Either way, the glasses have no use besides being a perv. As such, we don't need 'em.
Don't be so hyperbolic. Hands-free cameras have multiple legitimate uses, or do you think police body cams are unnecessary as well? What about a GoPro?
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy hundreds of styles of tiny and well-concealed "spy" cams, no questions asked, for a pittance online.
I hate Meta as much as the next geek, but everyone focusing solely on smart glasses is completely ignoring an entire world of intentionally discreet form factors. Hell, I have a smoke detector in my kitchen with a camera pointing straight at the front door. You'd never even know it was a camera without taking it apart, the lens just looks like an indicator LED. Granted, my use is 100% legitimate
Re: (Score:3)
All agreed, BUT the glasses seem to have opened up a new 'market' for pervs. Seemingly it's much easier to be a twat with glasses than it is to buy tiny cameras and mount them in smoke alarms or whatever. Maybe the pervs think all that subterfuge is "out of order" whereas just being a perv out in public is okay because it's in public?
Whatever level of tiny-camera-spying was going on wasn't enough to trip the mainstream media into action. This is, and as I say, unless there's a "killer app" for the glasses,
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there isn't a lot of journalistic objectivity in play here. Better that they don't use adjectives that display a personal bias.
Trade you a TikTok for a Fact.. (Score:2)
> The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them?
No, but TikTok delusion does.
I'll channel my inner Walter Cronkite when I say this; That is all that matters now. You were there? No. You don't even have to be there now.
Re: (Score:3)
> The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common,
It doesn't have to be common. If 99% of men don't follow women around to perv on them, the 1% who do still make it a big problem. Stuff like this:
[1]https://futurism.com/artificia... [futurism.com]
[2]https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09... [cnn.com]
[3]https://sfist.com/2025/10/03/h... [sfist.com]
[4]https://www.the-independent.co... [the-independent.com]
> nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone.
No, you can't be surreptitious with a cell phone.
[1] https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/teen-boys-meta-glasses-harass-bully-girls-school
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09/world/manfluencers-smart-glasses-intl
[3] https://sfist.com/2025/10/03/here-come-the-creeps-meta-ray-ban-glasses-dudebro-stalking-women-at-usf-posting-videos-of-them-to-social-media/
[4] https://www.the-independent.com/tech/meta-glasses-stalk-harass-women-study-b3030360.html
Re: "Does anybody buy in" (Score:2)
It's quite common globally since long before "pervert glasses".
Image boards like 4chan often have threads with poster-supplied content. If you want to understand humanity, look to its vilest preferences.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the outrage is some sort of viral marketing campaign, since I hadn't heard these were on the market, much less seen a pair, or even an advertisement for them before I saw the backlash. And I have trouble understanding the material difference from all the other sorts of camera that are absolutely everywhere. Maybe it's a bit easier to film someone while you interact with them, without them knowing? Then? OTOH, I can think of some nice mixed reality applications for glasses with a camera, like
Re: (Score:2)
> The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common, nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone. The phrase "We, as a society" is never going to end well, either. Don't try to coopt me into your vision of what everybody needs to do.
We have to reinforce the idea that all men are always creeps at all times, and all women are innocent victims of the creeps at all times, always, forever and ever, or the terrorists have already won. I dunno, man. The messaging from almost every direction the last decade or so seems customed designed to make sure we all view each other in the worst possible light. This post is very much a part of that trend.
I think it's far more likely people buying these glasses are doing it to film their mundane lives and
Re: (Score:3)
With a cell phone everyone would see what you are doing ...
uh (Score:2)
> The glasses include six built-in microphones so users can communicate with the chatbot
So instead of helping users film people illicitly, they are going to record ambient conversations illegally.
Re: (Score:2)
Only illegal outside of single-party consent states.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do the glasses request consent?
The name alone (Score:1)
...makes me want to buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
The name is excellent. The only thing these glasses should be recording is the victim's hand approaching them, followed by the shoe approaching them on the sidewalk.
Other cameras? (Score:2)
What about the other billion cameras constantly recording you in public?
Can we get an app for that too, or do we just have to deal with it?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to deal with it like you've always dealt with the absence of privacy in public spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to those often involves a sawz-all. Certainly you've heard of the Flock camera controversy.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Flock cameras are also invading privacy does not make other invasions of privacy more acceptable.
(And I've already seen five stories about Flock cameras on Slashdot just in the last month; you guys know that there are other things to worry about, ok?)
Not a new concept (Score:2)
I don't know why stories about this app are making the rounds these days; maybe because people think the name is cute?
[1]https://github.com/yjeanrenaud... [github.com] has been around for a while, and similar apps for a shorter time.
[1] https://github.com/yjeanrenaud/yj_nearbyglasses
How effective is IR floodlighting? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike RF jamming IR floodlighting is harmless to communications.
What (theoretically of course) would be required for a discreet 360-degree IR flood zone of useful depth?
Knowing countermeasures makes sense in an irreversibly declining-trust society. What are the most effective? The least disruptive to legitimate (which means communication, not concealed photographic spying) uses?
Re: (Score:2)
I think an IR strobe light would be better, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Flickering might work just as well, or better. Less energy and heat needed, and might screw up exposure or auto levelling. I have not tried it.
The problem is that if you walk around in public with a high brightness IR LED on your head, sooner or later some minimum wage security goon is going to notice their camera is blinded and get upset.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fywvB4Unjv4
Alternative Title. (Score:3)
Zuckerberg Fails to Learn the Decade Old Glasshole lesson.
Deaf people (Score:3)
Deaf people can use those smart glasses to generate a transcription of speech when people are talking to them. I home that use is not stigmatized, it's the one ethical perfect use for the technology.
Facebook is becoming.. (Score:2)
...increasingly useless
My feed consists almost entirely of stuff I don't want
And now they want to charge for it?
The brilliance of our tech overlords (Score:2, Funny)
"We're losing a bunch of money based on your bad decisions"
"Charge more subscription fees"
"Billion dollar idea sir! We should definitely look past every other shady thing and bad decision you've made"
Re: The brilliance of our tech overlords (Score:2)
And shove him under a bus or truck when it rolls by
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook launched the day after DARPA shut down Digital LifeLog and was funded directly by Peter Thiel. It's been connected to all the intelligence agencies since its founding. He doesn't actually need to make money. That's not the point. I deleted my Facebook years ago and everyone still says shit like "Didn't you see it on my Facebook?" How?! People are oblivious, and it's still used for nearly all small business instead of actual web pages. It's not going anywhere and it already has full capture.
Re: The brilliance of our tech overlords (Score:1)
Blockchain -> Metaverse -> VR Glasses -> AI. There are good use cases, not that big as the hype. Do I need to say more about those projects?