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.

  • slazer2au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

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

      • crimson_iris@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 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.

      • toofpic
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 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
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          3 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 minutes 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

      • Rhynoplaz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 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.