- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- dobre@szmer.info
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- dobre@szmer.info
A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.
You must log in or # to comment.
“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?
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.
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.
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
Removed by mod
trolls taking to the streets has taken a new timbre
"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
This is a very unpopular opinion in my opinion
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Time for a new iteration of the selfie stick!
The un-selfie stick
Don’t need to with a high powered laser pointer…
deleted by creator
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
That’s why in video games I smash everything in order to be safe.
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…
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
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.
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
… Are you a cop or something?
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.
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.
Control yourself, tough guy.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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?
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.
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.
unless it threatens your well being at that moment
Which in this case it’s doing. Next.
So, creepy men are now allowed to stare and record videos of women because technology allows it?
Do you happen to work for ICE?
We don’t have ICE in my country.
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
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.
Removed by mod
It’s really no different
Was the initial claim
Removed by mod
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Taking upskirt videos with your glasses is way more obvious and certainly would have been mentioned in the article.
You dropped this, queen. 👑
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wearing this shit in public should lose you an eye.
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.
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.
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”
someone should have done this to robert scoble like ten years ago because it might have stopped the whole craze.
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
There’s a disturbing number of creeps ITT arguing that they should be allowed to film people without their knowledge on the subway
Great!
