Show HN: Glasses to detect smart-glasses that have cameras

Project concept & perceived use cases

• Device aims to detect nearby camera-equipped smart glasses, primarily Meta/Ray-Ban, via IR reflection and wireless (BLE/Wi-Fi) signals.
• Some see strong use cases for mobile protection in public spaces (e.g. bars, red light districts, events, courthouses) or for staff/security where filming is banned.
• Others would use it for scanning Airbnbs or hidden cameras generally, not just smart glasses.
• A few commenters simply want personal protection from “glassholes,” even at the cost of wearing conspicuous hardware.

Privacy, norms, and legal context

• Many comments express dystopian concern about ubiquitous corporate recording for ads, politics, or tracking.
• Debate over whether the solution is primarily legislation, social norms, or individual tools; several say individuals can’t win this alone, others argue norms still matter.
• Legal discussion contrasts:
  • US: strong protections for recording in public via First Amendment–related jurisprudence, plus one-party-consent states for audio.
  • EU/UK: expectations of privacy in public, strict rules around creating “databases,” GDPR, and limits on constant surveillance vs incidental photos.
• Some argue that pervasive cameras already exist (phones, Ring, CCTV), so singling out smart glasses is inconsistent.

Technical approaches & countermeasures

• IR retroreflection / optics-detection is known from counter-sniper and anti-piracy systems; might work better in low light.
• BLE/Wi-Fi traffic analysis could distinguish glasses presence and possibly recording, but bandwidth patterns overlap with other devices.
• Ideas floated: IR LED “flooding” to wash out sensors, reflective clothing, license-plate reader jamming, EMP-style disruption, and even auto-lawsuit triggers via MAC address.
• RF jamming is repeatedly noted as illegal and potentially dangerous (interference with emergency services).

Limitations, false positives, and arms race

• Hidden micro-cameras in pens, key fobs, or clothing are cited as a bigger threat than visible smart glasses; detection will never be complete.
• QA-minded commenters ask how easily the system could be spoofed with similar BLE packets or optics, and how to manage false positives.
• Some foresee an escalating arms race: detectors, counter-detectors, normalization of covert recording, and possible future where detection becomes much harder.

Smart glasses: harms, benefits, and accessibility

• Strong unease about normalization of constant recording; references to “Black Mirror” and social decay from omnipresent cameras.
• Others highlight legitimate uses: tradespeople documenting work, cooking content, bodycam-like evidence against gaslighting, and especially accessibility (vision assistance for blind/low-vision users, potential for face or scene description).
• Concern raised that broad anti-smart-glasses tools might inadvertently disable assistive devices for blind users.