I spy

I’m just doing my job, but turns out, it feels lousy holding other people’s privacy in your hands. 我只是在做我的工作，但事实证明，将他人的隐私掌握在自己手中，这种感觉真的很糟糕。

I’ve long argued that Hollywood has simultaneously set and ruined our expectations for smart glasses. But after binge-watching two seasons of Netflix’s A Man on the Inside, this is perhaps the first time I’ve seen Hollywood, perhaps inadvertently, illustrate the biggest cultural problem with smart glasses as they stand today. 我一直认为，好莱坞在建立我们对智能眼镜期望的同时，也毁了这些期望。但在刷完两季 Netflix 的《内幕之人》（A Man on the Inside）后，这或许是我第一次看到好莱坞——也许是无意中——展现了当今智能眼镜所面临的最大文化问题。

In a nutshell, Ted Danson plays Charles Nieuwendyk, an elderly widower who finds a new purpose working for a private investigator. Armed with a pair of Ray-Ban Meta-like glasses, a voice recorder, and a smartphone, Nieuwendyk infiltrates a retirement home, and several privacy-infringing hijinks ensue as he hunts for the jewel thief robbing the retirees. 简而言之，泰德·丹森（Ted Danson）饰演的查尔斯·纽文迪克（Charles Nieuwendyk）是一位年迈的鳏夫，他在为一名私家侦探工作时找到了新的人生目标。纽文迪克配备了一副类似 Ray-Ban Meta 的眼镜、录音机和智能手机，潜入了一家养老院。在他搜寻抢劫退休老人的珠宝大盗时，发生了一系列侵犯隐私的闹剧。

Arguably, Nieuwendyk’s actions should be despicable. He’s using smart glasses — and other gadgets — to spy on an entire retirement home of non-consenting seniors and staff. Scarier still, no one ever seems to notice the glasses’ LED privacy light — which you can see in action during the first episode. 可以说，纽文迪克的行为应该是卑劣的。他利用智能眼镜和其他小工具，监视着整个养老院里那些并未同意被拍摄的老人和工作人员。更可怕的是，似乎没有人注意到眼镜上的 LED 隐私指示灯——你在第一集中就能看到它亮起的样子。

I suspect most viewers will view the smart glasses in this show as a mere plot device. It’s an outlandish premise, and the audience is made to understand that Nieuwendyk is a good person. He’s a bored grandpa trying to solve a crime — not, as many anti-smart glasses advocates fear, using glasses to harass women and ransom compromising footage. 我怀疑大多数观众只会把剧中的智能眼镜看作一种单纯的剧情工具。这是一个离奇的前提，观众会被引导去理解纽文迪克是个好人。他只是一个试图破案的无聊爷爷，而不是许多反智能眼镜倡导者所担心的那种——利用眼镜骚扰女性或勒索不雅视频的人。

It helps that he’s not particularly good at staying covert, but after four decades of gracing our TV screens, it’s also hard not to fall for Danson’s palpable avuncular charm. But, as a wearables expert, what I noticed was the internal conflict Nieuwendyk faced as the show progressed — the quiet moments when he decides to leave the glasses off or delete footage. And the less-quiet moments when his new friends feel betrayed by his subterfuge, unsure whether they can trust someone who so casually invaded their privacy. 他并不擅长保持隐蔽，这倒也无妨；而且在电视屏幕上活跃了四十年后，人们很难不被丹森那种显而易见的慈父魅力所吸引。但作为一名可穿戴设备专家，我注意到随着剧情推进，纽文迪克所面临的内心冲突——那些他决定摘下眼镜或删除录像的安静时刻。以及当他的新朋友们因他的欺瞒而感到被背叛，不确定是否能信任一个如此随意侵犯他们隐私的人时，那些并不安静的时刻。

This felt more like a reflection of my own experience as a wearables reviewer. These days, I spend months decked out in “spy glasses” and always-listening gadgets, living in what I’ve dubbed “the wearable surveillance state.” 这更像是对我作为可穿戴设备评测员经历的一种映射。如今，我花几个月的时间佩戴着“间谍眼镜”和时刻监听的小工具，生活在我所称的“可穿戴监控状态”中。

Two weeks ago, Meta launched cheaper smart glasses without Ray-Ban branding. Meta has been releasing new smart glasses at a steady clip ever since its Ray-Ban Meta glasses exceeded expectations in 2023. Last fall, the company even released its first pair of display glasses, complete with a nigh-invisible screen on the right lens and a futuristic wearable wristband for gesture controls. However, this launch was a bit different. This time, Meta partnered with Kylie Jenner, and ever since, the hot takes have been flowing on Threads, the company’s X-like social media platform. 两周前，Meta 推出了不带 Ray-Ban 品牌的廉价智能眼镜。自 2023 年 Ray-Ban Meta 眼镜超出预期以来，Meta 一直在稳步发布新款智能眼镜。去年秋天，该公司甚至发布了首款显示眼镜，右镜片上配有几乎隐形的屏幕，并配有用于手势控制的未来感可穿戴腕带。然而，这次发布有所不同。这一次，Meta 与凯莉·詹娜（Kylie Jenner）合作，从那以后，Meta 旗下的社交媒体平台 Threads 上就充斥着各种激烈的评论。

“We all agree that the Meta glasses are for perverts, yes?” Namina Forna, a New York Times bestselling author, writes in a Threads post with over 30,000 likes. “我们都同意 Meta 眼镜是给变态用的，对吧？”《纽约时报》畅销书作家娜米娜·福纳（Namina Forna）在一条获得超过 3 万点赞的 Threads 帖子中写道。

Posts like those have been rampant over the past week or so. To be fair, it’s worth noting that these glasses aren’t capable of 24/7 audio or video surveillance as some posters allege. Battery life is nowhere near good enough; using Live AI for continuous video, taking long phone calls, or recording about 10 3K videos will drain the battery in less than an hour (and that’s if you start fully charged). 过去一周左右，这类帖子层出不穷。平心而论，值得注意的是，这些眼镜并不像一些发帖者所声称的那样能够进行 24/7 全天候音频或视频监控。电池续航能力远达不到要求；使用 Live AI 进行连续视频拍摄、长时间通话或录制约 10 段 3K 视频，不到一小时就会耗尽电量（这还是在满电的情况下）。

Even so, the fact that you can mod the glasses or take short, stealthy clips is unsettling enough to inspire visceral reactions online. Some posts advocate that women buy the glasses to clap back and surveil the creeps harassing them. Others suggest violence, snatching people’s glasses, or publicly shaming Meta glasses users by yelling “Pedophile!” or expletives. A handful of posts point to Kylie Jenner as a hypocrite for publicly stating she values privacy while becoming a brand ambassador for Meta. 即便如此，你可以改装眼镜或拍摄隐蔽短片的事实，足以引起网络上的强烈反感。一些帖子主张女性购买这些眼镜进行反击，监视那些骚扰她们的变态。另一些人则建议采取暴力手段，抢走人们的眼镜，或者通过大喊“恋童癖！”或脏话来公开羞辱 Meta 眼镜用户。还有少数帖子指责凯莉·詹娜虚伪，因为她一方面公开声称自己重视隐私，另一方面却成为了 Meta 的品牌大使。

On the flip side, several Meta glasses users have posted that they’re bewildered by the sudden hate. It’s not sudden, really — the smart glasses debate has reignited in recent months thanks to recent New York Times and Wired investigations, which found that Meta has been mulling over facial recognition features for the glasses. But smart glasses fans point to accessibility use cases, or the fact that they bought the glasses to film private, hands-free videos of their children, pets, or vacations. Others note that they hadn’t thought about the privacy implications at all and are now conflicted. The more indignant posters in this camp have argued that smartphones (and other gadgets) are also surveillance devices and that no one can reasonably expect privacy in public spaces. 另一方面，一些 Meta 眼镜用户发帖称，他们对这种突如其来的仇恨感到困惑。其实这并不突然——由于《纽约时报》和《连线》杂志最近的调查发现 Meta 一直在考虑为眼镜增加面部识别功能，智能眼镜的争论在近几个月重新燃起。但智能眼镜的粉丝们指出了其在无障碍方面的用途，或者他们购买眼镜是为了拍摄孩子、宠物或度假时的私人免提视频。其他人则表示，他们之前根本没考虑过隐私问题，现在感到很矛盾。这一阵营中比较愤慨的发帖者认为，智能手机（和其他小工具）也是监控设备，在公共场所，没有人能合理地期望拥有隐私。

Social media is never a good place for nuanced debate, but that’s particularly true of Threads, which heavily rewards rage bait. That said, these posts are a succinct if crude snapshot of the cultural tension surrounding AI wearables. These past few weeks, I’ve been testing the Ray-Ban Meta Optics, the new Meta Glasses, and Vocci, an AI note-taking ring. These posts ring in my head as I wear and use these devices in public. Because while smart glasses are at the forefront of the privacy debate, 社交媒体从来不是进行细致辩论的好地方，对于极度奖励“愤怒诱饵”的 Threads 来说更是如此。话虽如此，这些帖子是对围绕 AI 可穿戴设备文化张力的一种简洁（尽管粗糙）的快照。过去几周，我一直在测试 Ray-Ban Meta Optics、新款 Meta 眼镜以及 AI 笔记戒指 Vocci。当我戴着并使用这些设备出现在公共场合时，这些帖子在我脑海中回响。因为虽然智能眼镜处于隐私辩论的最前沿，但……