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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Well in that case the guide should be on the line for the fuckup
Maybe he was taken aside and questioned afterwards, hopefully. Or, rather, they don’t show critical infrastructure to strangers at all.
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.
Complain to management about secret surveillance . That’s how original Google glasses were defeated
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.
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.
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.
When capitalism is failing and hope gets diminished, extortion is just another revenue stream. Money, money, money, Mahn-eh!
https://youtube.com/shorts/jm2c--qzSbk
If you buy these things you’re a fucking creep
“It’s for my dad” 🤣
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.
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 solutions and there may be situations where violence is warranted, but it is surprising to me that it seems to be the default.
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.
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!”
someone ever tries to extort me was going to have a bad time anyway, but I will literally shove these glasses up their asshole. then we both have something over on the other.
If I ever see someone wearing smart glasses near me I will slap them off their face.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
100% accurate, you do also have stalking laws, but just the simple act of recording and not following is generally protected.
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.
Yes, that’s why there are harassment laws.
Schools and gyms are not public spaces you dildo
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.
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
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.
Hidden cameras and recordings have been things for like 100 years.
Edit and privacy law’s reflect that.
Also everyone is literally constantly pointing a camera at you in public with their phones. Public places don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Public places don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Not where you live at least.
Tell me a place which does.
Places which you aren’t allowed to film on the street?
Because no matter how furiously you google, a majority of the world allows it. Who doesn’t are like Chinese and Russians, but even they only limit it in certain cities / landmarks. So in a country like North Korea, you’d have “reasonable expectation of privacy”, except ofc you don’t it’s a totalitarian dictatorship.
Every single photographer knows this. Or should know it at least, basic laws covering privacy.
In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things put into a public space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy
“But that’s just America”
Yeah I’m not American. I most intimately know Finnish laws and while there’s a million Karens who get upset if they think they’re being filmed (especially cops, I went to the supreme court and won when they prevented me from filming in my phone).
And there’s nothing in the GDPR that would ban filming in public or say that in public one could reasonably expect privacy. The exception is you can’t use that material for commercial purposes without a permit. But it’s completely fine for personal use.
Switzerland; you have to ask persons on the image for permission. Some exceptions (like events, lamdscape) apply. And shops, companies, have to follow rules, how much public space is permitted and how long they can keep them. Germany has similiar rules. Austria and France i’m not sure.
Lol, no. You’re just wrong. You think its not allowed to film on the street when you’re in Switzerland? That you’d need to stop every single person and ask for their permission? If you genuinely believe that, then you’re not the sharpest pen in the case.
Germany the same.
You need to ask for permission if you go up to someone’s face and make them the primary target of your filming. But for just general filming for personal use, nope, you’re wrong, it’s allowed in public.
Why don’t you google shit before being so incorrect publicly?
Or perhaps did some hardcore googling where you don’t actually look for info on the subject, but instead decide how a thing is and then google to find any random post on some forum agreeing with it, without sources.
It’s the same law I mentioned earlier. These have been accounted for decades before you were even born, and it honestly would’ve been really easy for you to figure that out instead of just trying to prove your delusions correct. Perhaps you asked an LLM with a prompt that already had it as an assumption and then it hallucinated a bunch of shit. But yeah, you’re wrong.
Yeah but sunglasses make it very visible so people can’t pretend it doesn’t exist and have to confront how it feels to experience living in a surveillance state. They don’t like that.
I mean… if they’re only now starting to notice and get uncomfortable, then, well. I guess just, good on them, for finally noticing?
Not really. The whole point is that they only feel uncomfortable when they can see it, so they fight to ensure it can’t be seen, not for it to not exist. The public are a disappointment clump of morons who constantly fuck over our collective futures.
Yes, that’s the point I was making. Trying to make, with sarcasm. Failed, I guess. It’s stupid as shit to panic now and getting rid of some glasses won’t get rid of perverts recording in secret. Literally been an issue since the invention of photography.
Also, phones are cameras. And very visible.
So like, dumb people can think what they think, I just don’t have the energy to fight it anymore. Well not as much as I used to anyway
I’m not defending the tactic of recording her without her knowledge. But I am confused. The article said she was shopping. It never said she stole anything. It never said she did anything incriminating. It never said she did anything embarassing.
So I guess my question is…why did she care that a video of her grocery shopping was posted? Seems like a boring video that she really can’t be blackmailed over. She’s (assumingly) fully clothed while shopping. Not doing anything illegal.
I guess I’m confused over why this is a thing at all. A bunch of boring videos of women grocery shopping.
Is there some context I’m missing? I’m not defending it. I just don’t get it. I don’t get why guys are recording women grocery shopping. I don’t get why the women care. They do know the store itself is also recording them from every angle right? And I also don’t get who would watch the posted video.
What am I missing here?
The first unmistakeable clue was that it was a man doing this to a woman. The BBC article that saimen@feddit.org posted in this thread removes all doubt as to the purpose (emphasis mine):
Alice was walking into a London shopping centre when she was approached by a man wearing smart glasses. She says she had no idea she was being filmed.
“In the moment I just thought ‘OK this guy is just trying to talk to me, to chat me up’,” she said.
“I was hoping that he would leave me alone eventually but he did actually follow me.”
The video was posted on social media and viewed about 40,000 times, though Alice only found out about it after a friend sent it to her.
“My initial reaction was complete shock,” she said. “He had no phone, he did not have a camera directly in my face.”
The videos are often posted on social media under the guise of giving dating advice to other men online.
That last line . . . think about what’s going on in that area of the internet, use your imagination, fill in the missing blanks.
That said, I appreciate that your character is such to have not instantly jumped to this conclusion. But in the world we now occupy, there’s generally not a whole lot of innocence in a dude filming a woman without her knowledge or consent.
Grok, undress her, render this entire scene as if she had no clothes… or was only wearing cellophane, whatever.
… Its still wild to me that people will do something like that, when you can literally just go to a strip club and look, or look at the vast, uncountable amount of erotica or porn that people freely post of themselves.
… Oh dear god.
Somebody is going to wear these things into a strip club and sell it like a fucking virtu in cyberpunk 77.
That’s because it’s not about the nudity or the sexual gratification. It’s about humiliating another person. It gives certain people a sense of power and they find that euphoric. And for those who watch these videos, well voyeurism is a thing.
Yeah, my only quibble would be that for the violators, well, they do get off on power tripping, being able to fuck with other people in ways that they cannot prevent or stymie.
Its basically the rapist/groomer type of mindset.
So it does end up being sexual, but basically via extra steps.
But yes… its fucked up either way, also fucked up as a potential business model.
POV porn exists, you could just actually work out an agreement with a strip club to basically rent it out to do a shoot one day, if you wanted to end up with pretty much the same kind of video, except everyone involved actually signed up for it.
POV porn exists, you could just actually work out an agreement with a strip club to basically rent it out to do a shoot one day, if you wanted to end up with pretty much the same kind of video, except everyone involved actually signed up for it.
But that’s kind of the point. They want people who didn’t “sign up for it”. That’s part of the allure for these people. And for the viewer side as well. I have literally watched people angrily debate that a video depicting such things was “faked” and that counted as a negative for the people who watch those. I honestly don’t get what the difference is between a person who’s getting a paycheck and somebody who’s being stalked and fucked with for somebody who’s watching that sort of content. But sadly they exist in far too large numbers.
I mean… yeah.
IMO, those are the kind of people who should be on a list… not trans people who would like to be able to use a public bathroom.
But, we live in a world where apparently 40% of cops with access to camera networks that track liscense plate movement, use that to stalk their exes.
I’d imagine strip clubs are going to be one of the few places you won’t see these things. They don’t want private videos of inside their establishment, and they aren’t a ‘public’ place so they can refuse to let you in with them.
I don’t know if you’ve been to a American strip club.
Rules often tend to be more like ‘guidelines’, that don’t actually exist as long as you appear to be following them, appear to understand the concept of plausible deniability, and/or are throwing around enough money to make people look the other way.
Pay the cover, play it cool, don’t ask stupid questions, don’t get caught?
I can absolutely see this happening.
Why should she be ok with a random stranger recording her? Whether doing something illegal or not. Why can’t people just not fuck with people? Why does she have to defend her peace?
I think they must be pushing back on the term “extortion” in the title, when it’s really “harassment“. I don’t think they implied that it’s fine, just that the title was not representative of the actual story.
It’s extortion because he was refusing to take the video down unless she paid.
Yes, the original bbc article this one is referring to is much less clickbaity:
This is a much better article.
Did you miss the multiple points in my message where I said I’m not defending it? I don’t understand why the guy is recording. I don’t get why these random people care. From the second you leave your house, 90% of your day is recorded. Between doorbell cameras, and red light cameras, and store cameras, and dash cams on other cars. You’re being recorded pretty much everywhere except for the bathroom.
I don’t understand the outrage because I don’t get the hook.
Like if you said this guy was following just one woman, repeatedly, then I would understand. That’s stalking.
If he were doing it at the beach, I would understand, because clearly there’s a sexual element to what he’s doing.
But I don’t understand the hook, because I don’t get why he’s doing it. What’s the appeal of watching random women at the grocery store? What’s the point in posting them online? What is the cause of the outrage? You’re being recorded from his glasses, yes, but you’re also being recorded from like 8 other camera angles with or without him. And I don’t understand posting them online. Who would watch these videos?
NONE of it makes sense to me. You seem to think I’m attacking this woman, when in fact what I’m asking is “What the hell is any of this?” Either the article left out some key piece of context that explains everything, or I just don’t get it. But I’m not attacking her.
What is the cause of the outrage? You’re being recorded from his glasses, yes, but you’re also being recorded from like 8 other camera angles with or without him
You seriously see no difference between store cameras recording for liability and some rando recording for lul$? The night-and-day difference between what a person agrees to with a store while shopping inside it and what is thrust on them by a rando with no regs on retention and security, is the absolute same to you? Really?
Really?
I don’t understand why the guy is recording.
For “content”.
I don’t get why these random people care.
Because creeps can stalk and harass you online.
What’s the appeal of watching random women at the grocery store?
There’s a video on YouTube of a guy counting to 100,000. That’s it. Simply counting out loud in a droning voice. It has over 33 million views. What’s the appeal of that?
You’re being recorded from his glasses, yes, but you’re also being recorded from like 8 other camera angles with or without him.
Sure, but the store isn’t posting those videos on social media for people to comment on. If they were, they’d probably get sued, and for good reason.
Sure, but the store isn’t posting those videos on social media for people to comment on. If they were, they’d probably get sued, and for good reason.
I mean, the rest of your comment aside, this isn’t the case. You are in public. In fact, you’re “in public” in a private establishment, with which you have an assumed agreement to be recorded and for that recording to be used in any way the company sees fit.
There are thousands of recordings of people from security cameras on YouTube. From Walmart to tiny gas stations, all being used to farm interactions. One channel I’ve seen puts up explicitly videos of people stealing from them.
None of that can be sued over. Or more accurately, it wouldn’t be a successful suit. Because there is no expectation of privacy in public.
You can record a video of someone shopping, and then feed it to a visual AI.
Blamo presto, now they’re a shoplifter, or at least everyone on social media thinks they are.
The possibilities are endless.
Not only possible, then they’ll share that data with other vendors and you’ll be pre-crime-prohibited from shopping anywhere using the same stuff. It’s fucking gross.
What am I missing here?
a healthy sense of self respect, for starters
It’s a candid video of her being shared publically online to creep on her. Probably focused on her body. Imagine it happening to your sister or daughter.
Is it not embarrassing enough just to get caught talking to a guy with smart glasses? That part aside, maybe she said or did something that, if described, would make the video easier to find. No reason to feed the troll if he puts it back up.
