A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.
“You’re going to be famous on the Internet!”
Lol, he’s right but not the way he thinks.
In the meantime, eth8n claims to have “filed a claim with the police and it’s a misdemeanor charge.”
“What she did was assault, can get arrested for it if I see her again and felt like it,” he wrote.
This guy sounds like such an annoying little bitch.
Who else would wear this shit?
I suffer from prosopagnosia (face blindness), so facial recognition would be legitimately useful for me.
Unfortunately it’s unlikely for this to be implemented in a privacy-respecting way. Arguably, even if it never “phones home”, it’s always going to be a more risky option—e.g. police can seize the glasses and see who you’ve seen, whereas they can’t seize your brain and see what faces you’ve seen. You might be fine with that risk, but will everyone you ever meet be fine with it?
There’s no privacy in public. End of story. There’s no privacy to respect in a public space.
You don’t just wear glasses in public. You wear them in private settings too.
ok, this isn’t a private setting though. If she had attacked him for filming her in private i’d %1000 support her. I dont support ppl being violent because they feel like it.
We’re not talking about the OP. We’re talking about someone suggesting smart glasses as an accessibility tool for facial recognition.
Cool, run a local tool. No harm in that.
But ifyou snitch on my location yo Facebook at all times, I’m gonna break the glasses and whatever you put them on, no remorse.
You do not get to surveil and put people at risk like that, your disability can get fucked if that’s your accommodatin.
Reasonably speaking, you have no way of knowing if smart glasses are local or remote processing just by looking at them.
reasonably speaking, there are no smartglasses today that are capable of doing that locally, and even if there would, that does not guarantee in any way that it keeps the data locally. youre a walking surveillance camera, and like it or not, if people don’t like that, that’s their decision.
I’m surprised teslas and other such surveillance trucks are not vandalized more.
The first assault on a cyborg using assistive glasses, that processed locally, happened in 2012 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/countering-mcdonald-s-denial-cyborg-posts-new-photo-alleged-assault-flna895484
Meta glasses process in the cloud because that’s what meta wants, the technology is more than there for local processing.
Omg I have some kind of name-forgetfulness. Takes me fucking ages to learn a name. This would be so handy.
see? these glasses don’t have to be for creepy men!
Slightly useful to you, extremely harmful for everyone else?
=
Sorry, no can do.
People with the need for A/R overlays on their vision? I can see their use in very specific situations but IDK why you would constantly wear them.
This tech for blind people could become fantastic, ai in general should be great for people with disabilities.
Same for a lot of jobs. I’m colourblind and can’t be an electrician, but if I had AR labelling the wires in basically real time it would be a different story.
Jackasses making weird noises on the subway and filming people ruin the potential of this stuff.
This is not an accessibility tool, and you’d need to fuvk with it a lot to make it one, and it still sends everything to Facebook-respectfully: fuck you and fuck your disability if your accommodation is to be a corporate ur-snitch; I’ll kick your metaphorical crutches out from under you and laugh about it.
Agree w the fuck you part but not with the anti-disability imagery. Anyone can become disabled, and ppl with actual disabilities have it hard enough without that.
If your accommodation is to sell my soul to a megacorp that works with the death squads that are eventually going to come for me, I’m gonna kick your crutches out from under you and laugh at how you can’t get up in ways I wouldn’t dream of if someone who hadn’t chosen to violate my privacy and take what will in the near future be a risk with getting me put in a concentration camp, that person being hurt and suffering is funny in kind of a poetic way, where the same action on someone who hadn’t decided their disability entitled them to violate my consent would just be fucked up and concerning.
Just say break their Google glasses, and fuck. You.
Nah, because its the disability being leveraged to harm me with a total lack of ethics or concern by a spectacular piece of shit. The disability becomes the aggression, or a shield for it, here.
And so hurting them on that axis becomes funny and good.
Sounds like a mini trump
In the places where tech like this would be helpful, there’s no reason that “recording” needs to be a part of it.
Colorblind person needs help identifying colors…great. Doesn’t mean the video needs to be stored. Face-blind people need help recognizing faces, it can access a local database. If the entire point of AI is to do real-time computing, there’s no reason for any image/video to be permanently stored anywhere.
Frankly, make the fucking things illegal in public, and allowed only in private settings where recording a member of the public won’t be a concern. They’re useful for doctors who are performing an operation and interacting with another doctor via the internet at the same time. They’re useful for things like that. But there is ZERO reason you need to be recording strangers in public without authorization.
But failing that, at least scrap the ability to record to a server. Shit’s just creepy. It was creepy when Google tried it. It’s even more creepy when it’s from a company that is open about using AI to create “personalized” ads using the images of people in it’s servers.
These glasses do not have even a fraction of the computing power to do any of that on device. It’s a uploading everything to the cloud. The design is surveilance first ask questions later.
as it should be when going into a known dangerous situation.
These are not “safety” glasses for the benefit of the user, where they are the ones in control of the data. This is all for the benefit of the corporation.
Sure the guy wears the glasses gets some utility out of the glasses otherwise he wouldn’t have one. The evidence collected can be resold back to the user, but ultimately it’s the user that finds value in them. The corporation is unlikely to find utility out of the footage which they cannot use without violating copyright laws.
I’m not arguing that these glasses do not contain spy tech, the issue with arguing that is, so does smartphones.
huge difference. smartphones are not recording the street most of the time, and they have permission controls.
I’m not at all a fan of being recorded in public but all of your examples…
- identifying colors
- recognizing faces
- real-time computing
These are situations in which the camera in the glasses is technically being accessed, which in software means something is analyzing the feed from the camera. If it is generating any output anywhere, even just visually for the user, it is recording in my mind. It may not be storing video, but it might face match and store a list of every recognized face it saw on the subway. There is no way for the OS to reasonably know what the feed is being used for unless it has exclusive control over the camera feed… and I sure as fuck aren’t going to trust the smart glasses manufacturer to be honest about what it is doing with the camera feed…
So basically, if the camera is in use at all, an indicator light should be on.
You’re correct. I should have worded it better. I meant “Stored” rather than recorded. Much like streaming a video has a temp file in your hard-drive while you’re watching the stream, but which ceases to exist after a certain amount of time to prevent you from pirating the content by saving a copy.
Glasses should operate much the same way (if at all…as I said…I’d still prefer the not at all option.)
Think the issue is, practically speaking, we don’t have a good track record of modeling precisely where the camera feed goes to decide if it is stored or not. Mobile OSes do present a more sophisticated permission structure that gets closer, but things are still too flexible to really comfortably assure that nothing that was a party to the feed didn’t somehow store it.
Assuming the system ecosystem is locked down, one could conceivably indicate only for retained camera data. App has camera permission but no internet and no storage premission, ok.
Of course, realistically speaking they kind of tried that with camera modules having their indicators OS controlled, and the practical reality is that malicious use could independently operate the camera from the LED and so the lesson learned was to keep it simple and have the LED control inexorably linked to camera activation at the module level without any sophisticated OS control possible.
i disagree with your sexual fixation on tiny LEDs. That was a dangerous situation warranting mitigation strategies including video recording.
Pretty sure this is going to be unpopular but …
Filming someone on a subway without their knowledge is often legal for video alone in the United States if you are in a public area and not focusing on intimate parts of their body, but it can become illegal depending on state wiretap (audio) laws, transit rules, and “unlawful surveillance” or voyeurism statutes. There are court cases and civil lawsuits touching on subway and public‑transit recording, but it really depends on purpose (e.g., sexual exploitation vs. news/photo use), location details, and whether audio is captured.
This guy is a creep and no he shouldn’t be able to record people like this. Then again you shouldn’t be able to destroy someone else’s property because you don’t like what they are doing with it. Would you feel the same way if he had his phone out and she did the same thing to it? What if it was a girl filming a man and he did this to her, would that be acceptable?
I hate to tell everyone we essentially live in a surveillance state and are constantly being filmed. Go look up Flock cameras or how easy it is to get Ring footage for example. I’m not condoning this in the least, but it is what it is. We honestly need better laws regarding this level of surveillance but as of right now we don’t.
Morally and ethically what she did may be applauded, but legally it’s not really all that gray.
Nah thats bullshit.
Intent is important. Being surveilled when in public doesn’t mean that its appropriate to record people on your personal device for your own use. Thats particularly true if you intend to publish that footage.
If some vapid insta bimbo was making an annoying noise, and recording people on her phone to get their response, and a guy broke her phone, I would absolutely applaud that.
Im aware that the law does not prohibit this behaviour, but the law ever was a poor indicator of “appropriate” behaviour.
Intent is important yes.
The rest of your comment is just a bad take. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. It doesn’t matter if I’m recording what I can see for reporting purposes, or to go home and furiously masturbate to the color of your lapel.
Now, if someone were recording upskirts, or in a private area? Different story completely. But my understanding is, that isn’t what was happening here.
Apparently, it’s a “bad take” I share with a great many people.
It’s true that I have no “expectation of privacy in public”, but I do have an expectation not to be a prop in someone’s content production hustle. If you can’t tell the difference I’m not really sure I can help you.
Apparently, it’s a “bad take” I share with a great many people.
Yeah, lots of people have bad takes on lots of stuff. Are you new to this planet?
I’m merely pointing out that saying someone’s opinion is a bad take is meaningless. “I disagree with your opinion”.
That’s a good point and I agree but I feel like bringing it up in the first place hurt the rest of your argument
I don’t care?
Want and have are different things.
You might want that, but it isn’t reality. In reality, you do not have any kind of “don’t record me” rights in public outside of the extremes like upskirts.
I’m kind of astonished that you don’t seem to be able to discern between laws, rights, and societal expectations. There’s nuance here that seems to be completely lost on you.
You’re correct that recording people in public is legal. However, while most people don’t mind being recorded for surveillance / security purposes, they sure as fuck do mind being recorded as content for someone’s tiktok following.
Like any anti-social behavior, most people might just ignore you, some people will tell you to knock it off, but sooner or later you’ll encounter someone who doesn’t give a fuck and they’ll retaliate, perhaps violently. This shouldn’t be surprising.
Is it “right” or lawful to assault someone who is recording you? Of course not, but it’s a manifestation for society’s distaste for this shit.
Apparently, it’s a “bad take” I share with a great many people
Lol, what you got 7 upvotes there? WOOOOOWW
I hate this phoney “everyone’s on my side” arguments.
Saying someone’s opinion is a “bad take” is just another “everyone’s on my side” argument.
i agree.
The guy was acting as a citizen journalist. And he reacted like someone that lucked into a story. It’s a non-negligible risk that violence will occur on the subway in a lawless sanctuary state run by despots and inhabited by Karens and the third world. So wearing surveillance glasses is completely warranted in this situation.
Maybe he identified the threat? Turns out he was right. What if it turns out the footage is him doing risk assessment?
I just wanted to mention, this was a rollercoaster of a comment for me.
Thank you.
Not everyone is forced to think from the one perspective,
Uh she's hot so ... creep perv blah blah blah'. People thinking like this are doing so have the luxury of being in a safe place.Made 2-3 other rollercoaster commentary in this thread. Hopefully entertaining. Presented passionate believable arguments for both perspectives.
For the point of showing both positions could have well reasoned credible arguments. Based solely on the evidence presented rather than possible hypothetical situations that might be applicable given hypothetical evidence we don’t have.
Well she didn’t commit a crime and you violently assaulted her.
Correct.
you are letting the rational-logical game theory elements of our society take over your willful intentions. Do you lack free will? No? Then act like it. Stop parroting the wisdom of the law when the law itself no longer reflects human intentions
Lol, meaningless.
Guess what, when you go in PUBLIC, your privacy decreases.
In a more civilized society morals and ethics align closely with laws. That’s theory though, I think we ended up with a cabal of pedophiles and tech bros who just want dirty girl pics and fuck the masses. Good for her standing up (if it’s not yet another fake grandstanding event).
Those transit systems record you constantly. There is no reason to assume privacy on public transport.
There is every reason NOT to assume privacy on public transport. I’m not sure I love that, but it’s probably for the best. That doesn’t mean that people should be able to privately film you though.
https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/
yeah, it’s complicated to say the least
I’m thinking this might have been a publicity stunt for either her or the glasses. If you see her launch a career from this then you know it was for her, meta wins either way.
He went out in public with the intention of provoking strangers, recording their reactions, and publishing it on the internet for profit. A stranger got a bit more provoked than he had preferred. It turns out that some people won’t be fine with being provoked, recorded, and published on the internet. How strange.
And now because of all of the media attention being generated he’s getting exactly what he wants. Millions and millions of views on his TikTok. He will likely be able to afford brand new glasses in less than a week.
I hope someone breaks his next pair as well then.
Recording in public isn’t the issue, there is no expectation of privacy.
Starting shit for reactions and sneaking pics like upskirts or of kids is where people are going to get upset and fuck you up.
Actually there is an expectation of privacy.
The argument that “if you’re in public and are filmed” it’s not an invasion of your privacy specifically relates to things that are considered “legitimate public insterest”,. If you’re tangentially caught on a news-report about a house fire, or an event, or something like that, for example. Of if you’re in the background on a cop’s dash cam during a traffic stop, etc…
Beyond that, no one can use your image without your consent. There’s a reason that members of the press need credentials and will usually walk around in a jacket that says PRESS on it; so that people know that they are in a place where they are likely to be recorded and can move away from it.
There’s a reason that, if a movie is shooting a scene and they catch a few background people, they have to send a poor production assistant running around with release forms so that those people can give their permission…other wise the film can’t use the footage.
Some incel recording a woman for his own personal spank-bank doesn’t fall into either of those categories. And anyone who is trying to claim that they’re all the same thing is a fucking creep.
That’s for commercial use. There are thousands upon thousands of cameras all over, there is nothing illegal recording you in public. Look at Teslas, cameras on all sides, I’ve got a dash cam front and rear. Nothing you can do about it in america, it’s protected by the first amendment in public.
On private property it’s a different story, but you cant trespass someone’s eyes, if they can see it, they can record it. Think of how many ring door cameras capture people daily.
Lmao. Press credentials are for specific events, almost always on private property. It’s just a badge to people know what/who you are. In public any joe can record.
NO, you can only film if you’ve printed out or written on a piece of paper “PRESS”. This makes you super duper legit and only then are you granted 1st amendment rights. If you don’t have a printer or at least paper and pen, then you’re shit out of luck!
This is because people need to be able to hide from cameras - this is also why it is ILLEGAL to film someone if they don’t know about it. Why do you think there’s bouncers at every business who make you sign a release form to enter any building? Why do you think people are forced to blur out bystanders when they take pictures at Disney? Why do you think that its ILLEGAL to film celebrities on the street? Check. Mate.
Lmao
Honestly the level of confidence and intelligent seeming approach that other guy had, while talking completely out of his ass, is unsettling.
It’s a common misconception until you’ve dealt with it or sat down and thought about it for a few moments.
no laws or caselaw cited
invalid opinion discarded
because of the situation he is in, the barrier is even lower than the situations you cited.
All you has to say is been assaulted or threatened often on the subway and no longer feels safe.
A conservative from outta state could perceive the women living there as more of a threat than their cuckoid menfolk (no Canada jab intended).
The footage we are seeing make complete sense. Instead arguing we should be praising his assessment and preparation for the situation he’s finding himself in.
This State is not inhabited by the righteous. The morals, ethics, laws, and consequences do not match the ideal you are measuring this guy against.
Recording in public isn’t the issue, there is no expectation of privacy.
Is anyone claiming that recording in public for any reason is wrong? Otherwise, I don’t get why this needs to be asserted.
You mentioned public, I was just clearing it up. These threads always get comments about recording in public, which isn’t illegal in the slightest. But you can still piss off the wrong person.
We have no reason to reach towards this conclusion or bring this up unless it’s to project this hypothetical situation for purpose of associating the subject as possibly being such a person.
Extreme accusations require extreme evidence.
I mean people could record you with their phones fairly easily and not look like they are.
A phone is easier to spot and figure it might be recording, not everyone is expecting the glasses to be recording
Tough. You ARE being recorded, all the time. Personal concealed cameras are totally okay.
The headline doesnt even imply this. Fuck pieces of shit that do this.
trolls taking to the streets has taken a new timbre
“Beautiful Woman Breaks Ugly Incel’s Creep Glasses”
This is the correct headline.
someone’s cranky about it lol. won’t someone think of the downvoting incels
“Violent assault is acceptable against men”
“I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at,” he claimed in the caption of a followup video. “She was the only person annoyed.”
And then everyone clapped at the noises he was making, all the way to the next stop, and then President Obama got on the train at the next stop and gave him the Medal of Freedom for his bravery and letting the woman sit down.
Seriously did this motherfucker just move to the city, that he thinks anyone will believe that bullshit?
I’m willing to bet the crying laughter from people around him came after his glasses got snatched off his face and snapped.
Classic bully behaviour. Provoke someone until they react, play the victim.
It’s amazing how often I see this in adults. I’m so disappointed with the world.
The name of one of the passengers? Albert Einstein.
"I even let her sit down when she got on the train at 42nd street, and I continued to stand.”
Bro did nothing but stand still and is taking credit for “allowing” her to sit lmao
not sitting to leave the seat open for someone is still doing something, you just don’t see the action as it was a mental decision to leave the seat free for someone else. he could have easily just sat.
that said, screw his little spy glasses.
I’m sure it’s an unpopular opinion, but what she did is really shitty and she should be charged with it. She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
It’s really no different than if she smashed someone’s phone because they were recording video in public.
She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
We don’t actually know that she didn’t, unless you’ve got another article with more detail. This article is sparse in details, but it’s only his word in it that she didn’t talk to him. That nobody was bothered by it. That it went from 0-100 in the span of a look.
And idk about you, but that doesn’t sound all that likely to me, when everyone laughs at him for the consequences (seen in video). The whole thing screams this guy is an unreliable narrator. The whole thing to me reads like he knew he was pissing people off, like a YouTube prank channel sort of bother, and expected to walk away from it consequence free.
This article has a bit more detail and it does make him sound like a shitty prank channel sort that relies on annoying other people going about their lives. But again has no info about the encounter except his own words.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/imagine-being-based-guy-says-143000399.html
Counter point: if you start filming me in public without my permission your phone is getting smashed, and I don’t care how shitty anybody thinks it is.
I’m glad the law disagrees with you. Someone doing something you consider disrespectful doesn’t justify assault and property damage.
It sounds like you have some anger control issues going on if that’s your go-to response.
When you wake up and walk outside to the corner store, you’ve had like 40 devices filming you… lol
Yeah but there’s a difference between a security cam and someone filming me to mock me on the internet. And for the record I’m not stoked about everything else filming me either.
https://www.foia.gov/ - Entire youtube channels with millions of followers request city camera, body cams, court cams, traffic cams… everything… and mock you on the internet. I don’t disagree with your feelings just reminding you of the world we live in.
If I could get away with it I would destroy those too.
Places where those cameras are required the most: police officers’ cabins; mayors’ and legislatives’ offices.
Legally there isn’t and it’s everyone’s fundamental right to criticize & ridicule you even to your face. In a free society, we argue with words, not force or violence.
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I think the internet has ruined many people’s perceptions of what is socially acceptable and that there may be consequences for harassing others.
aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Oh you sweet summer child.
I like this comment
Yeah but I can’t reach that high
Don’t need to with a high powered laser pointer…
Time for a new iteration of the selfie stick!
The un-selfie stick
deleted by creator
But they don’t follow you around focused on your tits and ass.
WTF dudes, you can stay home and jerk off with girls online happy to take your money.
Aren’t these usually CCTVs?
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I hate this comment
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I’m indifferent about this comment
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
echo…
That’s why in video games I smash everything in order to be safe.
… Are you a cop or something?
If you’re in a public space, people may be filming you.
It’s a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone’s phone.
TLDR: Control yourself, tough guy.
and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched
Funny how everyone agrees with the woman’s actions and finds them satisfying instead.
Yet you are trying to use this argument to defend the asshole guy. Well, watch the video again and see how not a single person said anything, clearly they all agreed with the woman’s actions and the guy got what he deserved.
Civil justice in progress when the laws and authorities fail.
Luckily laws can be changed. If there was a trial and a jury decided she is innocent, there would be precedent for all future cases to side with the person being filmed without consent and not the assholes.
“b… b… bUt iT wAs a PuBlIc PlaCe” - the assholes
I’m not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.
The point I’m making is that people shouldn’t start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.
You can’t put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.
Those comments are from men saving up for a pair to make videos of women for “further study” later.
I wonder how they feel about doing this on playgrounds around children?
So, creepy men are now allowed to stare and record videos of women because technology allows it?
Here’s different optics to consider: we know for many camera-enabled devices to deliver recordings to the cloud, where the data is used by authorities, often times in a very improper way.
In US, it is coordinating ICE raids; in other countries, it’s other kinds of shady and inhumane acts.
Fighting this on the level of legislation is great…when it works. Overturning the power of a dictator authority or simply struggling against decisions that are made up above often takes illegal, brutal acts, or at least ones of misdemeanor.
It sure never hurts to ask someone to stop first, but then I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
I think the assumption people are making here with my original comment is that I wouldn’t first tell them to stop and delete whatever they had recorded. Which is my fault because I can see that from the way I said it. But if that doesn’t work? Well, they don’t just get to keep doing it.
I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
Whatever “angle” you see is your mind trying to justify forcefully grabbing someone’s property to destroy it.
I don’t like surveillance either.
But you can’t go around forcefully breaking other people’s stuff unless it threatens your well being at that moment.
unless it threatens your well being at that moment
Which in this case it’s doing. Next.
The thing is, it may actually threaten someone’s wellbeing.
Surveillance, especially under a police state, can be a very clear and sometimes immediate threat.
You can’t legally commit violence based on a hypothetical scenario.
You can’t legally overthrow an oppressive regime, either. Legality is not the same as morality.
Something being in a public space does not give everyone there free reign to do things that are rude. And given the upvotes/downvotes it seems like most people tend to agree with me here.
Fuck internet points.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn’t required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don’t want that, campaign for legislation to change it. “Rudeness” isn’t a legal term. If you can’t tolerate being recorded in a public space, even “rudely”, leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people’s safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can’t start a fight legally, but you can finish one. “Rudeness” isn’t a good enough reason to start swinging.
So again, control yourself.
So, we are now supposed to just let creeps video record women because they paid for fancy glasses? Anyone notice this was a young, attractive woman?
TLDR: The law and it’s philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn’t run on what you think, and society is better for it.
Once again, the law says you aren’t protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There’s a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can’t grab other people’s stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.
If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she’d be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of “reasonable application of force” within what’s commonly known as a “force escalation continuum”.
So, no “creeps” shouldn’t be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it’s better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.
This is what a lawyer who specializes in getting off drunk drivers and playground perverts would argue.
This is shitty behavior.
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there’s recordings of him.
Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested
…And you think cops in this century of 21 would stop there… why?
I didn’t suggest assaulting anyone, you’re trying to paint this in a more violent light than it is.
Forcefully grabbing someone’s property to break it is assault.
Then why is Donald Trump not in jail?
I was not going to downvote your comment despite disagreeing with it, but since you are now citing your downvote/upvote ratio as proof that most people support your position, you now get downvotes from me.
Im totally fine with that friend.
And that’s ridiculous. You have no expectation of privacy in public. I thought the hate was overblown back in the Google Glass days, too.
You also should have, in a well-functioning society, no expectation of violation of personal rights (or even human rights) in public. Yet here we are.
Nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with someone attempting to openly mock me and throw me on the internet without the expectation of consequences. It’s about respect.
It was a subway car, can he just grab her breasts? Ass? Where is the line on sexual assault? Let’s review Creepy McCreepface’s video and see exactly why this woman got upset.
So you’re cool with letting men video children in public parks? Because it’s technically legal?
In multiple threads you’ve been really focused on sexual assault and harassment happening but I don’t see where in the article it says he was doing that? I’m sorry if I’m completely missing something
What a dumb take. Go back to putting up flock cams everywhere, cop-lover
Do you happen to work for ICE?
We don’t have ICE in my country.
This is a very unpopular opinion in my opinion
I hate everything about the dude in the video but breaking his property is a shitty response.
The problem with US society is a lack of shaming and negative enforcement.
Exactly, thanks for saying what we’re all thinking: she absolutely should have broken his face
Yeah. Should’ve broken his face too.
Unpopular unpopular opinion: recording public places for yourself shouldn’t even be considered a bad tone. Distribution of those recordings should, unless they contain some illegal activity.
These go through Facebook’s servers. This is not a private recording.
You spy on me for meta, turn yourself into a surveillance device, I will break something on you that doesn’t heal, and I still consider that generous.
Just losing his glasses was gracious m9deration on the part of this hero.
If your property trumps all over my privacy, I am the enemy of you having property. You are why we can’t have a fucking society.
No you won’t. You’re just talking big on the Internet.
You’re right. Totally. Where do you live? Maybe it’s nearby and I can see your cool vr glasses!
Lol. Bro come upstairs. Your tendies are getting cold
That joke doesn’t even make sense! I live in California; we don’t even have basements here!
Its not a joke your mom is pissed and taking it out on me. Come the fuck upstairs and get your tendies.
It is quite different, phones are useful devices that people rely on, this is not. More akin to breaking some useless annoying gadget like a toy siren or something
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is
My eyes glazed over as soon as I read this much.
Nothing you say after this matters for a device purpose built for non consensual and inconspicuous invasion of privacy
So I’m guessing you missed this part, then
don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording […], which I entirely agree with.
And this probably too…
The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick
Seems like you read two words and then just decided to guess what the rest of the comment is about.
That’s the general discourse in this community: ignoramuses flush logic down the shitter.
No worse. If they wanted to, structuring a well reasoned argument is challenging. Throwing out psyche bullshit np.
Then if ask, OK now structure an equally strong and passionate argument for an opposing view.
They’d just mentally be incapable. cuz that doesn’t fit into pattern of reactions from a rage addict.
Up to now have been strongly defending the guy. But fuck it this is a game. Now i’m her (watch as I get elected to office).
We, as a society, a long time ago have consciously chosen to put emphasis on people feelings and avoid behaviors that predictably lead to conflict, demonization, and/or demoralization of minority or disadvantaged groups. Although in other societies these behaviors are tolerated, here they are not. Outsiders projecting their ideals upon us can go fuck themselves and the application of laws that perpetuate the societies we purposefully and intentionally no longer want to be associated with as well as can ill afford. From just the evidence presented and nothing more, it’s plain to see this guy is targeting women on trains and it makes us uncomfortable and scared to ride the trains. The guy must be an out of towner cuz everyone here does not act this way. In Japan, there are separate cars for women. This change occurred from the harrassment culture that was perpetuated by manga anime and media. This change was instituted to make women in Japan feel safe again riding public transport and does not overly inconvenience men folk cuz it’s only enforced during rush hours.
Someone claiming they can do whatever they want cuz it’s a public space is not acceptable here and shouldn’t be. It breeds a confrontational society of self righteous warmongers that throws everyone but them into unsustainable unlivable lives. I’m surprised they don’t all live in tents due to unaffordable housing while we find housing from people who really no longer need it. I like a roof over my head thank you.
I get that, but don’t you get satisfaction raising inconvenient facts with rage addicts to lift their irrational outrage beyond orbit?
That isn’t what it is! That’s like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people’s privacy.
By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.
Where exactly do I claim it’s equally or that it’s equally vital/important ?
It’s really no different
Was the initial claim
That someone else made, not me, and I did not address at all.
Yeah, sure, you just claimed that I strawmanned their argument… Cmon.
EDIT: Also, who’s doing the strawmanning here? I said that “phones are useful devices that people rely on, while [smart glasses] are not”. Then, you went on a tirade how I said that smart glasses are “marginally convenient” instead of “literally useless”.
Did I say that they are literally useless? Or rather, implied that they are something along the lines of “marginally convenient”, thus not being “useful devices that people rely on”?
Also, I did not say anything about equivalence. I said “more akin to”. Which you took as literal equivalence.
This is the wildest pedantry I’ve witnessed in a while.
Yeah, this just makes anyone who opposes smart glasses look like bullies that are mad they can’t get away with assaulting people.
How about recording by video up her dress? This guy wants police involved? Ok, let’s review the video and see how many women he’s ogled in public.
Was he recording up her dress? Looks like she’s wearing jeans to me, personally
Sure, let’s miss the entire point.
I’m sorry mate, I think I’m just misunderstanding what you’re saying. To me, the point is what actually happened in this situation.
I see you’ve mentioned sexual assault and harassment a lot in these comments - I don’t see any reference to that in this article but it’s hardly an article really is it, is there some more context that I’m missing from somewhere else?
What if something entirely different happened though? Then the violence would be justified. Check and mate
Taking upskirt videos with your glasses is way more obvious and certainly would have been mentioned in the article.
It was self defense, and defense of others around her. In my book, that’s just about as much if not more than the police does these days.
A guy being annoying and recording a video in public is an immediate threat to yourself and others?
That sounds pretty fine. It’s when the video includes you and goes to a remote system that is the problem.
That still isn’t an immediate threat to you or others.
She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
Stop what? Wouldn’t there be a video of her breaking them if they were recording?
While Meta built in a small LED light in the front of its glasses to indicate when it’s recording a video, it can easily be covered by a small piece of tape, making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent. As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.
I was under the impression that covering the LED would prevent the camera function from working. I guess it doesn’t.
There should be a short of noise that’s made when a video or picture is taken/recording, kinda like how all Japanese phones are legally required to have a shutter click noise. It’d be nice if the LED being covered disabled the camera though.
Of course it doesn’t. It’s the finest in modern creep technology.
projection much? Imagine your not from Canada so your base line is not to suspect everyone is a creep.
making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent.
Hang on. I don’t need Meta glasses to spy on strangers in public. I can creep perfectly fine in my mirrored sunglasses.
and hidden cameras are a thing. The only reason the camera is worn is to know what target to focus upon.
Footage from cops cams are from chest level. These cop cams have been pushed upon cops because they lie 100% of the time. I enjoy their stories. The more absurd the better.
huh? people in public can be recorded without their consent. that’s what being in public is.
Yeah, but usually you know you’re being recorded because you can see the recording device. I think it’s fair to film in public, but not secretly.
Why does secretly matter? Unless they’re peeping under a skirt. It’s not “spying” - you’re in public.
If you know you’re being filmed, you usually modify your behavior accordingly. You can actively participate in whatever’s being filmed, double-check your posture, cover your face and walk away, etc. Not everyone wants their image spread online, so it’s important to give people the opportunity to avoid being filmed.
Clearly she did know she was being filmed but thats besides the points. 1: you’re nearly always being filmed in public.
My point is you’re not being spied on if you’re in public. Grown ass adult crying “stop looking at me!!!”
Why do you care if you have nothing to hide is a weak argument that’s been used to erode our rights. Fuck off.
Dumb fuck, you dont have a “right” to privacy in public. Also i never said that you fucking moron. Have fun fighting imaginary arguments in an empty room.
Please follow our instance’s Code of Conduct when engaging with our communities and try to avoid using insults. Repeated breaches will lead to temporary ban from our instance.
You absolutely do, and even the Supreme Court has sided that you have some expectation of privacy. Blanket “you don’t have a right to privacy” is why I’m calling you a dumbass. The EFF even agrees with me.
I don’t know what empty rooms you’re in, but I’m not surprised I guess given the kind of creep you are.
You should try reading that article yourself, which is about aggregated, long-term tracking (like GPS data or ALPR networks) and persistent surveillance over time, which is very different from the moment-to-moment visibility you have on a train.
Damn dude, you look really fucking stupid here, do you want to try again?
I’m not even legally allowed to aim a camera doorbell to the street
in the USA basically every third home as a doorbell camera these days. you are constantly being recorded everywhere you go, at least in urban areas. anytime i walk my dog at night everyone’s doorbell cams are lighting up.
Same here, no one gives a rats ass about privacylaws and no one enforces it
Depends on local laws.
As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.
From what I’ve heard the glasses have become popular among university students, and they’ve become yet another issue that has to be looked out for there.
The amount of precautions that have to be taken during exam time at universities keeps increasing. The testing rooms these days sound like they’re locked down as tightly as a jail.
There’s a disturbing number of creeps ITT arguing that they should be allowed to film people without their knowledge on the subway
That transit system must also be a “creep” because they’re recording you constantly while you’re there.
Oh that was your argument? No, that’s wrong. Do you really not understand the difference between a surveillance camera and an individual person’s camera?
No, I don’t. The subway company are a bunch of strangers and they didn’t ask if they could film me. They might as well be the individual person for all the difference it makes. Are you ok with breaking their cameras?
Do you seriously need someone to explain the difference, or are you just being contrary for its own sake?
Wearing this shit in public should lose you an eye.
There’s a nude beach around here, somebody was wearing those glasses there. Very bad.
That’s very interesting, but a public subway isn’t a nude beach. And no one has any reasonable expectation that subways will have no cloths days.
It’s great you live in a much better universe and know a disturbing amount about the culture of nude beaches. And even better, you are not even the slightest bit embarrassed to fake outrage. Precious.
Since have your attention, and probably the one to ask, how’s the donkey show? Is that a real thing?
Oh and when you respond, make it like i’m talking to a knob polisher and i just said men and women toilets should be separate base on sex at birth.
Please remember to follow our Code of Conduct, making unprovoked insults will lead to admin action. Continued breaches will eventually lead to temporary and permanent ban. for more information, see https://legal.programming.dev/docs/administration-guidelines/#protocols
In such a society, which lets assume is the case, would be justified to carry a baseball bat with bob wire rather than go around blind or ill prepared.
For beating gargoyles with, yeah
If they carry weapons and spy tools, their life is forfeit to their comnunity.
That’s guns vs no guns argument.
To which i say
your fat ban spoons!My comment is no less weak than yours.
You dropped this, queen. 👑
I’ve never been to America and even I know not to be a dick on a New York subway.
Unhinged behaviour. I’m not going to smash a kids phone because i see them recording a video on the train and I’m in it.
Then you’re a part of the problem.
Billionaires won’t protect our privacy. The Law and the government won’t protect our privacy because they’re bought by the billionaires. So it’s up to each of us. If we want our privacy and our right to not have our images used in some server without our consent, it’s up to us to smash the fucking things whenever we see it happening. Make the fuckers afraid to pull them out in public and make the sales tank.
You know as well as I do that the intended customer for these is influencer creeps with no regard for anyone’s privacy; so fuck 'em.
I’m so sick of people who are content to give away their privacy in exchange for every shiny new fucking toy.
Its not reasonable to expect public spaces to have 0 photography or video capture. I’m sorry but you’re just out of touch here.
But why are you OK with being someone’s content for their shit tiktok
Its unlikely they would film ME for the content. It would likely be that something else is the focus and I’m in the background. This doesnt invade my privacy as I’m expecting to be in public.
If someone was directly in my face filming my actions I wouldnt feel like my privacy had been violated I’d feel like I had encountered an asshole. Which happens sometimes when you leave your house and have to be among the general public.
Unless you are a mind reader, know the guy personally, or was there, there is no evidence this guy is creeping. Even if the guy is from a village that is inhabited only be creeps and one rapist. And the rapist is the most virtuous one in the village.
For fuck laden arguments sake, lets say he is (a creep). Lets use the US legal term, asshole. Lets say the guy is an asshole and he just so happens to be in a public area in a dangerous situation in a fucked up society. Then would defend his right to make recording in that situation.
Would like to say wouldn’t live in such a society, but we don’t get to choose where we were born.
and because you are so reasonable others would welcome you in their society /nosarc
