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.
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
If they go black mirror, black mirror them back: block them. Physically they talk, you don’t respond. They don’t exist anymore.
It might work if you’re a man but if you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter what you do, if a man wants to film you, follow you, harass you, he will do it. And now he’s filming it too and posting it online for profit.
yeah it probably won’t stop them I am a woman it’s mostly to publicly shame them bc maybe they’ll think twice if they’re not willing to escalate in public
Yeah it’s probably no harm at least, worth a try.
White western women need to adopt the niqab. It’s the only way.
Did you see what she was wearing? You could see her eyebrows, she was practically asking for it
By all means, ladies, please, keep boycotting sex. These assholes only have an inch, don’t give them another.
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
Removed by mod
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.
https://youtube.com/shorts/jm2c--qzSbk
If you buy these things you’re a fucking creep
“It’s for my dad” 🤣
Literally black mirror
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
But they have shit lenses and crap sensors
Gopros are 4k and can be much less visible than chunky glasses.
keep advocating for the perverts
Strange logic. You are hyperfocused on a particular product. I’m highlighting the more serious concerns. Neither of us are “advocating for the perverts”.
wow so just lie huh? just straight up fuckin lie?
you fucking liar. a go pro is a fucking cube with lens AND A SCREEN exposed. A BIT MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN YOU MADE IT OUT, WAY MORE OBVIOUS THAN A PAIR OF RAY BANS.
or are you so mentally deficient you can’t tell the difference between CAMERA CUBE and sunglasses?
what go pros are you buying? you fucking liar garbage
god I hope nobody paid to educate you, it was an absolute fucking waste of resources
Wow. So much anger. Why?
Yes a gopro has a screen but you only have to poke the lens through a hole in a bag or piece of clothing to have something superior and better camouflaged than chunky glasses.
Again I’m not arguing against your dislike of smart glasses, but you are missing the forest for the trees.
Wow. So much anger. Why?
dealing with morons like you who misrepresent the truth for lulz I guess. so they can run cover for pedos recording women and children. it’s sick, you’re sick, and you have the gall to wonder about people being angry?
you lie about everything and you wonder why people would be upset?
you fucking troll, get fucked. like, go to a nuclear power plant, get fuel rod, and shove it up your ass.
You have obviously grossly misunderstood my comments.
I suggest you make yourself a nice herbal tea, sit down and reread our interactions.
Gopros are 4k and can be much less visible than chunky glasses.
it’s obviously bullshit, but you still stick to it. jfc
BBC News - Woman covertly filmed for ‘humiliating’ social media content - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cdxpqg22q34o
Video version of the original story. He comes across as a creep.
I swear if someone approaches me with these glasses they’re going to find out just how fragile those frames are.
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.
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.
So WW2 dazzle camouflage? As a bonus, you are also protected from packs of roving U-boats!
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.
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.
this seems to be an actual problem.
https://www.404media.co/metas-ray-ban-glasses-users-film-and-harass-massage-parlor-workers/
surprised so many dismiss it so casually
Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It’s just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that’s all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)
It’s like saying I’m dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that’s a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.
But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they’re more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.
I’m not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I’m pointing out that the problems isn’t new
In the 90’s and 00’s there was a “video voyeurism” panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.
Because I think you’d agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it’s from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren’t quick to do anything:
##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism
On September 21, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (S. 1301) aimed at preventing video voyeurism. The Senate approved the measure on September 25, 2003 (see The Source, 9/26/03). It will now go to the White House for President Bush’s signature.
Sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would make it a federal crime to knowingly “capture,” by videotaping, filming, or photographing, an “improper image” of another individual, defined in the bill as “an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The term “broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image “with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.” In order to convict an offender of video voyeurism, prosecutors would have to show that the individual knowingly intended to capture the image.
Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI) said that video voyeurism “is a serious crime, the extent of which has been greatly exacerbated by the Internet. Because of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. As a result, individuals in the victims’ rights community have labeled video voyeurism ‘the new frontier of stalking.’”
Stressing the need for a federal law criminalizing video voyeurism, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) explained that many states “have passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal lands such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well-accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology.”
https://www.wcpinst.org/source/congress-criminalizes-video-voyeurism/?hl=en-GB
It’s still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don’t really work that well and b) because it’s just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.
pointing to the problems of the 90’s and 00’s is hilariously bad comparison. those devices were 320x200 or 640x480, not HD, 4k etc.
it’s facile and stupid to compare these as if they’re the same thing; and furthermore, the form factor and ability to disable to recording light - no, it’s not nearly the same fucking thing.
creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.
Fucking lol.
What you’re doing is “moving the goalposts”.
I’ll answer anyway; do you know what the resolution of an analog camera is, dipshit?
(edit, this is literally 90 years old)
creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.
How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.
To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.
you dumbfuck, I’ve been photographing on film since the 80s. I spent ages doing just black and white hand developed large format photography. to answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
perfectly exposed? where the developer didn’t need to push or pull? the resolution is incredible. off a spy camera like a minox? well that depends on if it’s a 8x11mm or 35mm, but the aperture is so tiny, restricting the amount of light on the negative that resolution isn’t really a concern.
NONE OF THIS CHANGES YOUR STUPIDITY, YOU GODDAMN TOOLBAG. keep working for the creeps
answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
No shit, Sherlock.
Which is why your complaint that bringing up all the hundreds of fucking privacy laws which explicitly define privacy is “childish and facile” is goddamn hilarious.
You’re just a sore kid crying because he was wrong.
You’re an illiterate moron.
Try to recap your point. Wait, you have none, because you too have admitted that metas glasses aren’t in any way a new problem.
That’s like being so shittingly brainless that you’d argue that the drug trade was invented with tor-networks.
You have no point you have no argument you’re just moving the goalposts because your tiny little ego can’t take having been wrong. I sincerely do hope you’re a kid, because having a psyche like that as an adult would be pitiful.
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
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.
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?
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.
Yes, the original bbc article this one is referring to is much less clickbaity:
This is a much better article.
It’s extortion because he was refusing to take the video down unless she paid.
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.
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.
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?
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.
What am I missing here?
a healthy sense of self respect, for starters
Removed by mod
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
They don’t have to be doing something.
You just capture their likeness and Ai prompts do the rest.
Ooof.
Btw I have video of you engaged in passionate sexual congress with a platypus. Send me bitcoin or your mother sees it!
How did you know about my platypus kink? Please send it to me.
what a great take, to start with victim blaming
wow.
Yup, that’s where I started. You can tell because apparently you can read minds and stood right next to me as well when I started to think about this.
because apparently you can read minds
you toolbag, I can read what you wrote.
What were the victims doing
You don’t know where I started. You know that I asked that question. It is not where I started. I thought about the implications and why technology is not the issue but the application of said technology. Also that acceptance or tolerance by a society comes into play.
I couldn’t figure out what their angle was for blackmail was because you need one to be successful. So I asked that question.
It is not victim blaming, it’s asking about circumstances I am not familiar with since I couldn’t be there and see for myself. I can’t read minds you know.
And by the way the saying that only a person willing to do something wrong can be conned could be a nice angle for blackmail. If you catch a person doing something wrong makes them vulnerable. I KNOW that somebody would use footage of that to blackmail somebody.
AI didn’t come into play here for me until somebody pointed it out.
So take your tool out of my bag and relax.
So take your tool out of my bag and relax.
fucking gross bastard, get your jollies somewhere else
you’re a defender of the creeps, and that was the creepiest bit so far. you know people are evil but want them to have better equip to creep with, it’s insufferable
Sure thing. You absolutely understood my point.
Blocked
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.
