Literally black mirror
What were the victims doing that would incriminate them? I am not saying that it isn’t enough to just not want to be filmed, but most people don’t seem to care about privacy so I am wondering if they had some leverage.
probably being a woman while naked
another reason to continue masking in public tbh
probably going to start purposefully looking away from people if they try to talk to me with those on and if they push it I’ll ask them to take them off and if they refuse to disengage completely
I know none of this is foolproof but it at least is social pressure and signalling to anyone around that I’m trying to avoid them if it escalates
Not thick enough.
This is not about smart glasses.
holding a glass slab in front of someone’s face is a lot more likely to be clocked.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. They are cheaper and even less obvious than thick black ray bans.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. T
It is entirely about smart glasses. button cameras have been around for AGES. But they have shit lenses and crap sensors; these fucking chodes want to up the production value on the nonconsensual porn they already shoot with their phones - on the stairs up skirts, down the blouses of women, etc.,
they want a head cam with better resolution and head tracking.
keep advocating for the perverts
I got a tour of a military base with a guy who was wearing smart glasses and I couldn’t fucking believe that someone didn’t grab them off his face and break them in half. I was being VERY careful to ask if I was permitted to take pictures in some places (in at least one of which where the answer was No), and this dude was cruising around like Boris Badunov trying to gather secrets.
Might be a good time to tell someone.
I DID tell the guide what he was wearing because I didn’t want us to end up in a military detention cell but the guide was like “Eh, it’s fine,” so I guess it was, but boy it didn’t feel like it should have been!
it was fine because guide probably didnt understand the concept of glasses being able to record stuff, otherwise it would have been fine for you to take pictures too.
Maybe he was taken aside and questioned afterwards, hopefully. Or, rather, they don’t show critical infrastructure to strangers at all.
Well in that case the guide should be on the line for the fuckup
Smart glasses are probably where the privacy debate around AI becomes truly mainstream. Phones are visible, wearable AI cameras are much harder for people to recognize in real time. It feels like society is heading toward a major legal and ethical adjustment period.
A person can already LOOK anywhere they want, and almost every inch of ground is covered by surveillance cameras that are recording your every move.
This just combines two things that are already happening. When it gets to court, I doubt a judge is going to care much.
Smart glasses have absolutely nothing to do with AI. They’re just cameras.
Are they now? Its in the name.
I think AI granting the ability for nearly anyone to easily manipulate short videos in a way that looks realistic might be where it comes into the picture.
Having video evidence of everything you do is just unsettling at the very least if you ask me.
Meta AI smart glasses exist, doesn’t it?
If you act like a twat, you can be called out online. But only affects you if you online.
Im not online anywhere, except here. And this place sucks and has 4 users, and if it gets better/bigger im leaving.
https://youtube.com/shorts/jm2c--qzSbk
If you buy these things you’re a fucking creep
“It’s for my dad” 🤣
When capitalism is failing and hope gets diminished, extortion is just another revenue stream. Money, money, money, Mahn-eh!
What did she do that was humiliating? I get not wanting random videos of oneself online, but why is she so anxious about the video? She was just shopping, what so embarrassing about that?
Could even be nothing. I’m imagining part of it being social engineering, gaslight people into thinking the video you have of them is embarrasing
Or baiting people into reactive abuse, and editing the video to make it look like they were the aggressor.
I swear if someone approaches me with these glasses they’re going to find out just how fragile those frames are.
We have a real baddy here. So tough.
Aw you think I’m a baddie? Thanks sweetheart
Complain to management about secret surveillance . That’s how original Google glasses were defeated
No. They weren’t defeated. They looked dumb and no one wanted to wear them all the time. They simply evolved into the type of glasses, which are now all over.
Defeated? Aren’t we establishing right fucking here and now that they weren’t defeated, just streamlined? Am I hallucinating this thread and comment I’m typing?
Ohh, right but Google and Meta are different. How did I not give one single fuck about that detail??? Man I’m stupid. Fucking IDIOT I am. Definitely not you. Me, I’m the stupid fucking moron. Not you.
precisely why I won’t talk to someone wearing a camera, or pointing a camera at me… I’ll stand there in silence the entire time, or just walk away.
put the camera down, talk or buh bye…
The point is that she didn’t even know she was being recorded. That’s why this story is all about the smart glasses being used to covertly record people.
“But I want to document what you say!”
🤐🖕
Only time it’s acceptable is in front of a cop since they can’t be trusted to operate the cameras they should be wearing themselves
Any public servants, really. Private citizens in public should have a bit of protection from potential harassment.
Need some of those things movie stars use against the paparazzi.
fists?
I suspect they meant the patterned clothing that confuses cameras.
I am against constant surveillance and these are huge privacy violations, especially because it seems very unlikely they’re storing the media exclusively locally. Also, the fact that they can be more discreet than many other options for recording is concerning.
The first two ads I ever saw for these were of a guy using them to quietly cheat at, IIRC, a board game; and of someone having a conversation, only to realize the other party was recording it. They looked like legit ads, but I’m not sure how anyone could think that was positive press.
All that said, the number of people advocating violence in response is alarming. Depending on the environment, I feel the appropriate response is to ask the wearer to remove them and then, if they refuse, remove either yourself or them from the situation. Obviously no one solution fits all situations and there may be situations where violence is warranted, but it is surprising to me that it seems to be the default.
edit: Recently started using a new keyboard on my phone, had to correct a word it chose for me. The meaning I was trying to convey was not altered.
I agree. Creating an environment where people have no recourse but to logically need to respond with violence is quite alarming. If only there were people citizens could call and implicitly trust to serve and protect them without being like, kidnapped or just murdered for their skin color. Society should really try its best to eliminate those elements. Oh well, until then at least we have fists and crowbars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It seems like you might not actually be agreeing with me.
But I said I agree and didn’t even use a /s tag. I always use those for my sarcastic comments, which are rare and used sparingly.
While your argument is compelling, I still have my doubts about your sincerity.
So WW2 dazzle camouflage? As a bonus, you are also protected from packs of roving U-boats!
That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.
FWIW, my state is basically the opposite of land locked. I’m not comfortable with telling lies. I don’t mind saying things that are inaccurate to make someone laugh but I don’t want to make anyone believe those claims.
That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.
The landshark U-boats are a real menace. They can climb out of a farmer’s pond like walking catfish and the next thing you know, they’re torpedoing a grain silo in Peoria.
One of my groomsmen always defended his fear of water by saying “there could be kaiju army crawling under there, you don’t know!”
If I ever see someone wearing smart glasses near me I will slap them off their face.
You’ll assault them?
Like all those maga people who hate pedophiles (apparently)
Doubt
No you won’t.
Are you sure you’d be able to tell? These people are actively looking for ways to disguise these things so that you can’t tell that they’re wearing them.
what about people with phones ? how does recording a video, or taking a photo in a public place justify violence?
The problem is it’s typically more obvious when someone is taking a phone video
Type shirt button camera into Google. Those are even less obvious than chunky glasses.
The problem is the blackmail perverts not the tech. (Athough metas glasses are a privacy nightmare by design).
Yeah, that phone in my shirt pocket set to record really gets noticed… by exactly nobody.
Yeah, I do this all the time actually. Grocery shopping and the wife wants to FaceTime? Shirt pocket. No one even gives it a first glance, never mind second.
If you use a wide-angle-lense on a samsung, you can be angled 45 degrees away from your target.
All recording devices need to make it abundantly obvious you’re recording and have interlocks so that if those ways are defeated, it’s noticed and they refuse to record.
You think battery is acceptable but not illegal recording?
If I catch a glasshole directing their gaze at me, I’ll beer batter them, them deep fry them, head, glasses and all.
Ok, that’s murder but you do you
I have to ask why you think anyone would take a Jeussaurus seriously on Lemmy of all fucking places.
Wait, who says battery is unacceptable across the board? Has anyone ever taken that position?
I mean, Mohandas Gandhi thought so.
Nah
“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
Seems like pushing the definition of battery, buy I guess it does call for battering someone under certain conditions. 😅
I think I understand where you’re coming from, and this is mostly humor and pedantry on my part, but given that the definition of “battery” is “unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact,” the quote from Gandhi isn’t “pushing” it, rather is in perfect alignment, as he stated “unlawful” use as his acceptable use of violence.
That’s true! If you punch me in the face in an illegal manner, I’m also battered!
you don’t consider deliberately invading people’s privacy a form of assault?
that’s fucking cute.
It may well be in certain conditions. But if someone is assaulting you and you defend yourself, that isn’t battery. So I’m not sure how it relates to my point.
If you just go smack the glasses off someone’s face because you don’t like them, you are the asshole
you want to invade people’s privacy casually, and not have them react. so smacking it is, when I see glassholes like you, hands are gonna fly.
If you’re in public, you have no expectation of privacy.
It’d be one thing if you were at a hospital or at home. But walking down the street? No such privacy.
on the street, for sure. In line at the pharmacy?
at the gym?
I normally like your responses but this one misses a tremendous amount of spaces that blur the line between public and private. I’m a huge advocate for photography, it’s not a crime, but also, these devices are enabling the worst creeps to get away with monumental invasions of privacy.
https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/
https://www.stalkingawareness.org/map/
There aren’t really any blurred lines. Your gym is acceptable, unless they set a police not to record (many, if not most do)
I think there seems to be extensive confusion between the terms “illegal” and “socially unacceptable”. There are tons of objectively and widely agreed-upon reprehensible actions that are perfectly legal. The argument “but the law is clear on this matter”, is largely irrelevant in the context of the conversation we are having here.
I would not expect privacy in those places (excepting the bathrooms and locker rooms), either, unless the specific retailer or gym had a policy against filming other patrons. And even then, I would expect them to be filming me anyway as part of their security.
I’m not for people filming everything, everywhere but I am also not naive to expect a level of privacy out and about among other people outside of your home, therapy, or a doctor’s office.
security cameras run by the establishment are not the same as earpod cams maneuvered into place to watch some poor woman do squats. it’s who’s controlling the footage and storing the take - those are very different things!
none of this is rocket science either. the pub doesn’t put cameras in above the urinals - the creep standing next to you recording your junk - is that in public? it’s in a public place.
no thanks.
Yeah, it isn’t rocket science. The bathrooms are already protected as private spaces. The rest of the store is not.
You are a creepy person, please don’t live near me.
If you’re in public, you have no expectation of privacy.
Yes, from the eyes of the people immediately around me. I do not expect to be taken in picture form that can be either stored forever or transmitted everywhere all at once.
Most places disagree with you. You walking down the street means you’re walking in front of doorbell cameras, dash cams, general surveillance cameras, the guy shooting a tick tock video, and more.
Someone wearing glasses that record isn’t any more invasive than any of those, is it?
Yup, it is. Glad we’ve settled that k thanks bye.
Good talk, very well thought out position.
100% accurate, you do also have stalking laws, but just the simple act of recording and not following is generally protected.
if it people is following and recording you, or trying to get a picture of your privates, you should not complain about it to the person stalking you.
Privacy in public spaces is not a thing and never was. For a good reason to.
ah yes, there’s only space that’s private or public, there’s never any appropriate shades of nuance.
wonder how people would feel about you filming their kids’ school. or at the gym, or waiting in dr’s office, etc., etc.,
people should have the right to not be creeped on by shitty assholes.
Those are not public spaces? There might be shades of nuances, but they are at least not found in your examples.
I can at least agree with the creepy assholes part, where it is justified.
the mall’s public. if some creep upskirts your wife/kids there, guess that’s just fine huh?
With these glasses?! That would be really funny in a “wtf are you doing” way.
Can you imagine it? “just a moment ma’am gonna take a quick picture “sticks his head up her skirt””
Yes, that’s why there are harassment laws.
Schools and gyms are not public spaces you dildo
you dildo
cool, so it’s a no moderation free fire zone.
Look, you unreconstructed whelp of a whore, the law only helps if you can get the police state to react in time. What, you gonna call 911 for the slave catchers to come every time you see a pair of glasses? because if they’ve deactivated the recording light (WHICH, YO, DUMBFUCK, THERE’S A VIDEO OF SOMEONE LOOKING FOR THIS SERVICE IN THIS POST’S COMMENTS) how would you know whether or not they’re upskirting your daughter on the fucking escalator?
You’re either so smoothbrained you lack the imagination required to make that tiny leap, or, you’re advocating on behalf of the fucking perverts, and should be cast into the bowels of hell with all the other kiddy diddler pervert shitbags.
GET FUCKED WITH A BLOWTORCH YOU SUBHUMAN SHITBAG
You got downvoted but you’re right.
I know
cameras everywhere; phones, CCTV etc their is no expectation of privacy in a public space.
Recording police beating someone should be allowed for example, yet you’ll go over and slap the glasses off their face as they record the cops beating someone to respect the cops right to privacy?
Wow, what a great spinner of strawman tales you’re growing up to be!
No, it’s the perv at the bar looking down blouses, it’s the creepazoid on the escalators looking up skirts. It’s the animal spending far too much time loitering around your kids’ school entrance.
See, two can play imagination!
But only one of our examples is actually a thing, eh? Your example has never happened. My examples have happened over and over again with PHONES. ffs
Buses, trains, and subways. No one expects the dude sitting across the car to be filming up their skirt. Well, they might, but it would be more obvious in the past.
yup. it’s disgusting we have to spell out ‘pervs are already doing it, you’re just improving their pervert equipment for higher production values you sick fucks’
So much straw
The right to privacy is important
Yes, I agree. So is the right to not have your shit rocked out in a public street because someone doesn’t like the shape of your camera
If someone breaches any part of the social contract, it seems a little rich to for them to lean on its protections while they’re doing it.
What part of the social contract is being breached by filming in public with a glasses shaped camera vs a regular camera
I don’t think the shape of the camera matters half as much as:
- overtly brandishing it at someone
- trying to hide the fact that you are brandishing at someone (like by hiding it in your glasses)
Those actions are seen as aggressions by many, many people, as can be seen in the fallout from the original Google Glass, because there is an implicit desire to frame the target as guilty of something.
I’m sure this part is obvious now as it follows directly from above, but unprovoked aggressions violate the social contract, and brandishing cameras or surreptitiously recording people are widely regarded as aggressions.
fwiw I think you are completely right for asking this. Violence-loving freaks around here, sometimes.
Some people are in need of violence.
Ah yes, troglodyte diplomacy.
You can enjoy feeling superior all the way to the camps if you prefer
Nice threat.
You sound fragile.
