John Dolan: If you wear smart glasses, I’ll just assume you’re a wrong un

One of my warmest childhood memories is of hearing the letterbox clank early of a Saturday morning, jumping out of bed, and racing to the front door to try to beat my brother to the prized gifts awaiting us - the weekly comics.

Beano, Dandy, Whizzer And Chips, Cor!, Buster... none of that superhero nonsense for me, just good, wholesome laughs and fun.

I read them for the cartoon strips, but in those days, comics had pages of classified ads targeting gullible kids’ pocket money. One that stands out in my memory was an ad for what were claimed to be ‘X-Ray Specs’.

Looking at them now is a real eye-opener. These yokes claimed to “see bones thru skin”, or even “see thru clothing”. One ad shows a feverishly excited boy who seems to be undressing a woman with his eyes, who may have been his mother... I don’t think the word ‘inappropriate” existed in the 1970s.

I never bought them, and don’t know anyone who ever did. I half-recall an urban legend that some sucker had purchased a pair, waited six months for them to arrive, and then realised they weren’t offering X-ray vision at all, despite the boast that they “guaranteed” it.

Like, duh.

Heaven only knows how these wildly false ads could have made it into print for so long - they were different, simpler times.

But I imagine if these specs really had proffered the gift of X-ray vision on millions of boys (I don’t think the ads made it to girls’ comics because, well, they aren’t that stupid) the adults in the room would swiftly have binned them, and then the Government would have outlawed them.

Now, fast forward a generation or two, and we have our own version of those creepy ‘X-Ray Specs’. Except, in this case, they really do what they say on the tin.

They are called smart glasses, and they are very smart indeed. They don’t undress mums hanging out the washing, never mind allow the user to see through to their bones. But they have a potentially sinister use nonetheless.

The glasses are essentially portable computers that can record what the wearer sees and hears, as well as give them real-time information on objects in their line of vision.

They are a bit like smartphones, the big difference being that you generally are aware when a person is filming or recording you with those devices, whereas if a person walks behind you wearing smart glasses, you don’t.

That gives them a secretive, sinister edge, and is the reason why public institutions are starting to crackdown on their use.

The smart glasses, made by Facebook and Instagram owner Meta, have been criticised by Ireland’s data protection watchdog for it not being obvious when they are recording.

An LED light in the glasses is designed to activate when something is being filmed, but the Data Protection Commission said Meta had not demonstrated that comprehensive field testing had been carried out to confirm the light was an effective notice mechanism.

Meta has since announced new measures to combat secret filming, saying its newer-generation glasses will not be able to film content if someone has tampered with the LED light. But the public rightly remains wary.

This week, action was taken when recording devices like smart glasses were banned from libraries across Cork.

The by-law states that such devices cannot be used, operated, or deployed without “prior written authorisation” from librarians or library staff.

Any attempt to take photographs or images of children in a library without the prior written consent of their parents or guardians is also prohibited.

This makes sense, a member of the public wouldn’t turn up at a library with a camera or smartphone and start snapping people. Why should someone in smart glasses have the ability to do so?

Those who “obstruct, impede, or refuse to comply with a request or instruction” from an authorised officer enforcing the by-law will be guilty of an offence under section 204(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 2001.

This will hold them liable to a fine of up to €2,500.

But, perhaps more seriously for that person’s reputation, it will lead the public to believe the offender was up to no good, whatever their defence.

Put it this way, if I see someone in public in smart glasses - they can look bulky, have lights on them, and the user might be tapping the frames a lot - I will automatically assume you are a wrong un.

I applaud Cork City Council for its stance on them.

A spokesperson said: “Cork’s public libraries are welcoming spaces for all. These by-laws are in force to ensure that they can be used by the public in an appropriate and safe manner.”

Restaurants, pubs, cinemas, and theatres in the UK have already banned smart glasses over privacy concerns, and I hope Ireland goes the same way.

The chief executive of UK pub chain Wetherspoons said it will not allow people to record using the glasses inside its venues.

Several theatres have said anyone wearing the glasses during shows will be asked to remove them. Perhaps cinemas need to follow suit.

And I wonder how long it will be before the first school in Cork takes a stand and bans them after a pupil tests the waters?

Look, nobody likes to stand in the way of progress, but not every hi-tech invention should be slavishly followed and approved. See also: e-scooters.

These smart glasses deserve to go the way of ‘X-Ray Specs’ - and I’m delighted to see a campaign group has been launched in the UK aimed at banning them outright.

The website, StopSmartGlasses.com, points people to a petition and also provides people with the tools to take action locally.

“The wearer chooses to put a camera on their face. Everyone else is forced to live with that choice,” said tech founder Liz Hunter, who launched the campaign.

“The wearer gets the technology. The company gets the profit. Everyone else loses control over when they’re recorded and what happens to the footage. That’s a transfer of power dressed up as progress, and it’s an absolute disgrace. The price of innovation shouldn’t be your right to privacy.”

Smart words.