A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.
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.
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.
The headline doesnt even imply this. Fuck pieces of shit that do this.
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.
trolls taking to the streets has taken a new timbre
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.
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.
Before facebook even existed a Canadian company was producing contact lens which trsnsmitted light onto the retina to create virtual reality interfaces. They of course had glasses form product as well.
So discussing big ugly glasses is 30-40 year old tech.
Keep in mind, VR investment scam has been around forever. But ok tell me why this time is different.
Just because something has been around for years doesn’t mean manufactures don’t want you talking about their product. Cars…, it has special newer wheels. See how cool they look.
Phones… Look at the all new improved camera.
What’s that phrase ,any publicity is good publicity. People are taking about your product and its free and spreading.
you continue living like it’s 2005 and tell me how that works out for you, mmk?
To be honest I’d like to go back to 2005 if I was given the chance.
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.
https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/
yeah, it’s complicated to say the least
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).
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.
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.
“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”
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.
I’ve never been to America and even I know not to be a dick on a New York subway.
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?
The doubebag smile on his face in the left pic tells me everything I need to know about who’s in the right here.
pfft Canadian. Your jumping to conclusions based on projection is what would expect from a people who were surprised that using GoFundMe during protests might not end well.
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.
Can we have local AI type of tech that does not save videos? Something without a wireless connection.
Technically possible. You’d just need to connect your glasses to a backpack computer with 5kg of batteries if you want more than 2 hours of battery life.
Now that my toxic boss is gone, I can make AI tell me insults instead! (and have the glasses destroyed by mistake, because people will think it’s the ones that do record)
Maybe Japan was right
What part? not having trial by jury
Requiring phones to always make shutter sounds to prevent secretly violating people’s privacy
Any coder can decide what sounds are emitted from their phones. Simply edit out the line or turn off the audio output.
Welcome to a world that includes Linux. As justification of my actions, would argue these features of emitting sounds after every action is addictive and since i own the phone can choose what runs on it. The only sound want is from A/V calls. Govts ability to regulate everything is not unlimited and absolute.
Especially if there is a coder involved.
That sushi should be eaten fish side down.
Actually going to try that. But even then the fish is not designed to wrap the rice like a bag.
Moving a sushi and getting it into the mouth, with two sticks, without it breaking, consistently, is really a mystery.
I could coding anything. But sushi is challenging.
According to the vast majority of sushi chefs in Japan, sushi should be eaten fish side down using your hands. It wouldn’t wrap the rice like that, I don’t think.
I wonder if the people defending the dude know where the recordings go.
Would they still defend him if the recordings are sent to (or otherwise available to) Meta?
its uploaded into zuckerborgs android body.
People defending the idiot probably don’t care about where the recordings go, so long as they go “on the internet” “for the lulz”
I like her defiant smirk, she knows what she did.
I have several perspectives on this:
1: that’s wrong and you shouldn’t break other peoples stuff. just ask nicely. 2: that’s right and he shouldn’t have been videoing you. also weren’t meta glasses originally for exercising and stuff I saw an add where people were running and asking meta how they could improve and taking calls and stuff
“he shouldn’t have been videoing you” why? I can see the argument that it’s socially rude, but its absolutely legal in public.
People’s notion that they can’t be filmed genuinely feels like children screaming “stop looking at me!!!”
This is how we ended up with Flock.
Then advocate for changing the law. Its childish to think you get to just assault people and destroy their shit because they’ve made you uncomfortable
Whatever law is written can be challenged in court.
If the victim believes strongly enough and believes justice cannot be gleaned from the current society, he may not base his reactions or future actions based on legal or illegal.
A certain percentage of society will just go into video game mode. We see this over and over again.
its just rude, ok? why would you want to be videoed without consent???
If I punched everyone that was rude to me that would be a lot of people.
why is everybody being mean to me because of my post what is this middle school
You dont get to assault people and destroy property for being rude though is the point. Not holding the door for someone is rude but you can’t then punch them for it, legally.
Taking your situation. Could make an argument, but this illustration is more convincing.
I’m living in a society that doesn’t have that custom. i’m from a society that does. When they see the guy twice their size, sometimes not always, they somehow recall that’s a custom.
This custom is a litmus test for how much a person can perceive beyond their own self. Some people are incapable of empathy or seek out applying lose-win situations.
I have a good idea. Don’t fail at this custom. For those who really lack empathy they should be even more proactive as to fake it convincingly.
Choose your battles. This one is most definitely not worth fighting.
You want me to bow so you can live out your princess fantasies? np
It should be noted that the legality depends on local laws. There are definitely countries where this is illegal.
legal illegal argument is weak. If you present a strong argument that is ignored and feel strongly justice was denied and decide to luigi your oppressors, laws have changed for less.
It takes one guy … one
This happened in New York and i doubt even places where its illegal to film you can just assault someone and destroy their property.
Why does objection to something socially rude feel like child tantrums to you?
Isn’t not being rude a matter of decency and respect?
