from HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to world@lemmy.world on 24 Jan 08:12
https://sh.itjust.works/post/54000025
Dilara was on her lunch break in the London store where she works when a tall man walked up to her and said: “I swear red hair means you’ve just been heartbroken.”
The man continued the conversation as they both got in a lift, and he asked Dilara for her phone number.
What Dilara did not realise was that the man was secretly filming her on his smart glasses - which look like normal eyewear but have a tiny camera which can record video.
The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3m views. “I just wanted to cry,” Dilara, 21, told the BBC.
The man who filmed her, it turned out, had posted dozens of secretly filmed videos to TikTok, giving men tips on how to approach women.
Dilara also found out that her phone number was visible in the video. She then faced a wave of messages and calls.
#world
threaded - newest
And now TikTok is advertising itself on UK TV as an educational tool. I expect everyone on here recognises them as evil already, so don’t doubt it!
Fuck TikTok. And fuck smart glasses. What the fuck is wrong with people who would even design glasses with a hidden camera?
Glassholes are making a comeback, fuck.
They’re being built into earbuds and headphones now too. Let me see if I can find links to the products again, saw them while browsing articles about CES
Edit: soundguys.com/razer-project-motoko-ai-headphones-…
The headphones were real, the earbuds were just a concept image though
Jesus. Black Mirror is all coming true.
Fuck the assholes who would do this.
Absolutely. I cannot believe such a creepy product would be made to begin with though.
They’re desperate to get data about human activity. They wanted data about what people do online and they’ve got all of that. Now they need to move into the human world as much as possible. It used to be just for selling to advertisers, but now they also need to feed it into AI.
They already try to force these into every area of our lives… all phone data, all online content, dating apps, phone keyboards, browser fingerprinting, internet connected fridges, cars, door bells, home cameras, etc etc. Now they will try to find new and novel ways to put more data collection devices (camera, mic, GPS, gryo and movement trackers, any physical parameter they can think of, etc etc) into more insane devices.
They will push “smart” clothes, wearable AI devices, furniture, toilet, etc etc. They will say these are absolutely essential and add value to our lives. People will eat this up immediately and fall over themselves to incorporate these into their lives and celebrate how amazing this is.
It started with the initial days of Facebook when I didn’t want to be on Facebook, but people I know would still upload my pictures and tag them with my name. They need more and more ways to get information on people not in their ecosystem. This shit will only get more and more invasive.
And then they’ll call anyone who thinks “smart” devices are stupid a luddite…
Technology was a mistake
Billionaires are the mistake.
Both can be solved with a daneaxe.
Smart glasses and hidden cameras are two different products.
That being said, anyone can easily film you in public because anyone just assumes you’re just holding your phone up for something else.
I consider it hidden if it’s designed to look like a normal pair of glasses which the post states is the case.
Yes, it is a hidden camera in a pair of glasses, not smart glasses.
They were pointing out the difference. It would be like someone confusing a camera for a smartphone.
Not really. For the purposes of this conversation that doesn’t matter at all. The only things that matter here would be can the glasses film and can anyone tell that at a glance? I don’t care if the glasses can also do Google searches or some shit. That doesn’t necessarily violate my privacy. What violates my privacy is someone filming, without me even having a clue they might be.
In the US, that does not legally violate your privacy if you are in public.
You get that there is a difference in “I can tell I’m being filmed” and not, right? You get that law is behind technology sometimes, right? Not sure why there’s an argument here.
You’re almost always being filmed in public in many places. The courts say it doesn’t matter whether or not you realize it, in the US.
So no, you don’t realize either point. Cool, you’re basically an intellectual brick.
The law is always behind technology. There’s no gotcha here. I was just talking about the standard the law has to pass to last, under current interpretation. Lots of laws get passed and then struck down as not meeting the standard of constitutional muster. Just because someone wants to ban something doesn’t mean the law will stand. Thanks for the degredation though.
There are many states that have 2-party consent laws regarding being recorded. In my jurisdiction, what the glasshole did might have been illegal. (I’m not a lawyer or judge)
Two party consent laws only apply in situations where they would have an expectation of privacy, as in not in public. Much of the whole first amendment auditing community is focused on educating people about this. State laws can’t trump constitutional precedent.
It does, because the statement that people are taking issue with:
Is objectively correct and that was the only point they were trying to make. They were not claiming that it makes filming okay or that hidden cameras are not a problem.
The people are not responding to the actual words written by the person, they’re replying the the subtext that they feel was implied.
Me: makes point
Online weirdo: akshually, you’re wrong. Unrelated irrelevant details matter
You: yeah, ya idiot! It totally matters cuz we said so!
Edit: checks out completely that your only post on this platform is to claim you weren’t being transphobic and making a big stink about it
If you get so triggered when people point out that you’re wrong, maybe you should spend more time reading a book and less time trying to be insulting.
Your comments read like you’re an angsty teenager who is incapable of having a conversation like an adult.
Yours read like a libertarian from the early 2000s who is definitely okay with some heinous shit but won’t own up to it. Save your projecty reading recommendations for yourself.
Did I hit a nerve, princess?
More projection. Seems I nailed it. Toxicly masculine insult and everything just to confirm.
Nope. If someone is doing that, I can easily notice it and know it’s a possibility and move/turn away. Just because I can judge that as probably not happening doesn’t mean a phone being held is equivalent to a human literally just wearing glasses with their head turned my way.
Are you really advocating for the position that I should give up the fight and just accept being filmed at all times in public?
Agreed.
Assuming you’re in the US, you have no expectations of privacy in public, and it’s perfectly legal to film you in public. You do have to accept that, yes.
I’m sure a case can be made for someone approaching you and getting you to interact while filming secretly, and I hope she can sue him for damages. But simply being recorded in public is not something you can do anything about.
I am well aware of that supreme court decision. If hidden cameras mounted in glasses were a thing then, I highly doubt that ruling could’ve ever happened. Thanks for telling me what I have to accept though. Totally helpful and kind thing to do. Thanks also for the weird condescension. Exactly what the world needs right now.
I wasn’t condescending at all, and it didn’t seem you were aware, I was trying to be informative. What a weird response, honestly.
FYI since you pretend not to know: “you do have to accept [thing that didn’t exist at the time a ruling was made]” would read as being a smartass to most people
Gotcha, I didn’t realize it came off like that.
Again, was trying to be informative, because not accepting it implied not being aware, and we all have to accept it… or revolt and rewrite the rules…
If you’re in the US, the supreme court has said repeatedly we have no expectation of privacy in public. Anyone can operate as the press and the first amendment locks in their right specifically to film in publicly accessible places, and also to record government employees in the course of their duties based on current constitutioal law. It’s good for filming cops from a short distance away, but if you physically get in their way they can arrest you. And resisting detainment or arrest can apparently get you shot.
The flip side is yeah anyone can be recording you at any time in public. We can make laws to restrict that but the burden to pass constitutional scrutiny is high. Because of that, I’m not allowed to film into your home from outside, that was deemed an acceptable exception. If I could get the restrictions I’d like to see, it would be dismantling the surveillance state they’ve put up with Flock cameras etc. The government isn’t allowed to surveil citizens without a court order, so they simply contracted it out to private companies.
lemmy.world/comment/21756300
Funny you say that. There was a YouTube channel (that also spawned those NPC meme videos) that randomly went up to people and started recording them without context/saying anything. The idea was to bring attention to the fact that you’re being recorded in public spaces constantly, by bazillion cameras around
Do something interesting and you might find yourself online by one of those cameras
I’m fully ok with punching these people in the face and break their glasses. If their nose gets broken in the process, that’s just something we have to live with.
Are you okay with all of the potential consequences of that action? Being shot by the person you punched? Or at minimum going to jail for assault?
I don’t live in a place where ‘being shot’ is a constant fear I have to live with, so no.
Nice. That means if they’re physically weaker than you then you can beat them up and they can’t do anything about it besides call the police.
Hope they go to the gym and have been in a few fights before, lol.
Turns it is okay to punch a guy with glasses.
This is so fucked up, and the guy who did this needs to be doxxed and have his whole life made hell, but…
Back when the ubiquitousness of smartphone cameras was still fairly new, and the prospect of being secretly recorded and posted online at any given moment was still unthinkable yet real, I tried raising the concern whenever/however I could.
Like, I would tell people “this is fucked up, and we shouldn’t normalize this.” And you know what they told me, nearly without fail? They called me a creep and said if I wasn’t doing anything I wouldn’t want people to see online, then I wouldn’t be worried about being secretly recorded.
It was like this pseudo “women’s empowerment” sentiment where they thought this gives them the ability to ruin men’s lives (often over short clips out of context that only look bad based on how it’s spinned in the caption), thus “protecting” women, and they didn’t think it would ever turn back on them and blow up in their faces.
Unbeknownst to them, one of my main concerns was the danger this poses for women. But of course, no one would believe that, because I was a man, so of course the only reasonable assumption was that I was a misogynist and only concerned with privacy so I could get away with predatory behavior. So of course, if I raise a fuss about this then I must be a creep. Of course.
Well, look what’s come home to roost. Amazing. Who could have predicted this?
The ‘if you not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide’ argument is a logical fallicy.
Any time someone throws that at you ask them why they have curtains/blinds on their windows, doors on their rooms and fences around their house.
The problem isn’t the recording, this was in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy, the problem is covert recording.
Yes, and covert recording by definition is done without the knowledge or consent of the one being recorded. It should be illegal everywhere, but some states have single-party consent laws which allow it.
(imagine applying such a rule to sexual activity, it would be absurd; yet somehow it’s totally legal to broadcast a person’s name, face, and location to the world without them even knowing what’s happening?)
I think knowledge and consent need to be distinguished, there are lots of people who are filmed in public that wouldn’t consent to it, bike thieves for instance. I don’t think that banning filming or photography in public is a sensible idea.
Do you also support CCTV and flock cameras, then? Because that’s the same argument used to justify those.
“Be afraid of crime. Let the authorities spy on you. Now you’re protected.” What about when the authorities abuse their power? Who’s going to protect you then?
(For the record, I believe all public officials should be required to give up some of their expectations of privacy as a condition of working as a public official. The public requires a level of trust in them that it doesn’t require of ordinary private citizens. They should have to submit financial statements, and they should also have to declare unconditional consent to be recorded by anyone in any given moment, except in confidential spaces like homes, offices, briefing rooms, etc.)
But the thing is, in order to catch a bike thief on video, you have to already be recording either them or the bike, and since it’s nearly impossible to predict, the chances of catching it on camera are slim. Unless you use ubiquitous area cameras pointed at all the bike racks. And even then, if they’re casual enough or hide their face then no one would know they’re stealing it except the owner of the bike, or no one would be able to identify the person who stole it.
I don’t think giving the authorities (or the hive mind, for that matter) unrestricted access to constant recordings of every public space is a sensible idea, because it’s too prone to abuse. That’s how you get a surveillance state, like the USSR or america right now. They misinterpret a movement of your hand and label you “antifa terrorist” and you get flagged for closer scrutiny, where everything they observe you doing is then run through interpretive filters that are biased towards describing you as a terrorist.
Whoever is analyzing those recordings is going to be paranoid to some degree, or their algorithms are going to hallucinate patterns that aren’t there, or someone is going to get vindictive and use the power to abuse anyone they don’t like. Do you want every twitch, gesture, or facial expression being labelled and categorized by AI and then saved into a profile of you that some unknown spook can access at any time? Then when you notice plain clothes agents scoping you out, they get a screenshot of your face looking nervous and label it as “definitely guilty,” and they close in on you tighter and tighter until either your anxiety takes over and you’re labeled as paranoid/psychotic, or they push you into a panic attack and label your conduct “disorderly” and use it as a pretext to make an arrest?
The whole thing is too prone to abuse, and it’s not even an effective deterrent for crime prevention. I can’t agree with it. Better to build community trust and economic empowerment to address crime from the root causes; that’s the only method that’s been shown to significantly reduce crime.
Exactly. But fascists want privacy for themselves, and if they don’t get it then they’ll call people commies. But if anyone else wants privacy, then fascists say they’re acting suspicious and must be guilty of something.
Make it make sense. (Yes I know, conservatives are self-contradictory and have no ideological consistency; rules for me not for thee, we get it…)
They post dudes from the gym just trying to work out to shame them for attention and it’s all fine because ‘safety’ but if they get posted or recorded it’s suddenly an issue. Women’s empowerment has always been hypocritical and self-serving.
The average consumer is stupid as a bag of rocks and care more about doing what they feel like doing than doing what is wise. They’ve helped build a consumer product surveillance state and will never admit any fault for it, even when ICE now uses it to gestapo them. They shamed anyone that dared suggest maybe don’t invite tracking and surveillance technology into every inch of OUR lives, or posting everyone’s shit on Facebook all day. Fuck these ppl for helping usher in the techbro fascist dictatorship we’re now suffering.
And then they hit you with the “If you just don’t bother women, then you won’t be accused of harassment!” and the “Believe victims! No one actually weaponizes false accusations in retaliation for petty grievances. Women never lie!”
Emmett Till begs to differ…
This dude deserves nothing less that an ass beating then criminal charges.
Criminal justice system: Best I can do is a 300$ fine and 60 hours community service.
That woman who smashed an idiot’s glasses in New York a few weeks/months? ago was ahead of the curve.
Is she going to smash all of the other cameras recording her in public?
Or it’s okay when governments/businesses do it?
I didn’t say it was, but the governments/businesses aren’t posting people’s contact information to TikTok.
If someone wants to start smashing flock cameras, I’m certainly not going to stop then
It’s all good until she breaks someone’s plain old real prescription glasses thinking they are smart glasses.
I think we’re reaching the point where “anti smart glasses” glasses should become a thing, that is, a type of electronic glasses that can detect whether the person you’re talking to is wearing smart glasses and warn you about it.
I want a device that makes it explode on their face and melt their eyes.
Israel can probably make you one of those.
There are already phone apps that try to do this with WiFi/Bluetooth scanning, object detection, red “filters” and so on.
Theoretically, it’d be really cheap to make a tiny “detector” camera; maybe a Bluetooth earbud looking thing on one ear? Every existing tiny camera can pick up infrared if you just take off and change the filter, and your phone can run tiny object detection algos with almost no power.
The problem is mass adoption.
Better would be glasses (or some other device) that would selectively disable smart glasses. Extra points if the device causes the glasses to catch fire.
These glasses are supposed to have a “recording” light.
Ah, but he could have had the high-tech circumvention duct tape fitted.
Don’t even need it to look that bad. You can buy tiny stickers to cover that light in such a way as to near-completely hide it.
Some do, because they want to sell to the international market where it might be required, or because they maybe think it is the right thing to do. It is not required in the US. Hidden cameras have been a thing for st least 75 years and the supreme court has essentially said, if you can see it in public, you can record it in public.
God i hate the idea that you have to wear glasses just because other people are total cunts.
Infrared leds should be able to overexpose the cameras unless they have IR filters in them.
Until there’s a law against it, a law that requires an obvious flashing red light, this will continue to happen. I know the Meta glasses have a light that supposedly can’t be covered without covering the camera. But, that’s there only because Meta chose to put it there to head off complaints, à la Google Glass.
But, I think those lights will go away, and I believe that is what the billionaires who make the choices want to happen. Because, being in public, not knowing whether you’re being filmed is a great way to keep the masses in line. Fear and division in the populous is how those in power stay in power, when the people want them out.
How exactly should a law like this work? Should it be obvious to anyone being recorded in public that they are being recorded and who is doing it?
That wouldn’t be very beneficial to the surveillance state.
I don’t have a link right offhand, but the indicator led is defeatable. There’s people on ebay offering the modded glasses for only (iirc) like $100 more than msrp.
This glasses should not be allowed. We need clear indicators of recording not that tiny light meta added.
She didn’t deserve that, and these glasses are so problematic. Too problematic for society, just like so much of the AI products being introduced.
Yes some of the glasses are supposed to have lights, but if you search online you can find plenty of ways to cover or conceal them.
Also myself and my significant other wear prescription glasses that have a similar shape to these. At what point do we have to start being anxious about people starting to slug anyone wearing glasses out of paranoid concerns for their privacy?
I don’t want to deal with any of this. We live in such a dystopian world.
Do these stupid companies actually think that any of these products aren’t just going to be used by perverts?
There are legitimate professional use cases: for example, imagine a consulting doctor looking in on what another surgeon is doing and offering opinions as the operation goes on. Or same thing with engineers.
But I can’t think of a single consumer use case that isn’t designed for perverts.
I’m 90% on-board with disliking these, but I can see uses for ‘Augmented Reality’ glasses. I just wish they worked the way they do in Sci-fi and video games.
Lots of interactions we have on our phones could be done hands-free on a HUD
automatic translation of text or voice when traveling navigation/directions and similar guidance, like automatic subway/train maps instant access to biometric data trends like heart rate, glucose levels and more
I’ve also been part of a pilot to get a HUD to provide AR data to a manufacturing operator, showing things like line speed, temperature and other kinds of data they would otherwise have to go to a computer for. This was around the google glass era, though, and the devices were too pricey to justify and the tech wasn’t there yet.
I do think these devices need to be more obvious. We called them glassholes when google was starting this wearable computing trend and people were using them inappropriately; and we’ve seen how any internet-connected camera like Ring and Flock can be abused.
The concept of the personal HUD is useful, but it still needs workshopping to make it socially safe. Also, the ones like the Meta/Rayban glasses are just pervert tools. No AR, just a camera has no value other than creeping.
Even if these companies try to create a technology with the express concern to make its use ethical, clean, safe, private, and pragmatically useful, perverts will still manage to gunk it up with pervert slime.
Not holding out much hope on either of these things right now. Maybe we’ll end up in the star trek universe somehow.
Using those kinds of glasses would be a great way to expose a narcissist in real time; I’ve personally done certain things in my own home as a child to prove someone else’s guilt, and this kind of stuff would’ve made it simpler. Ethical use solves problems instead of creating new ones.
Straight up, that guy needs his knees bent the wrong way - no way in Hell is he too stupid to not understand that he was putting her in genuine danger by splashing her digits and face online.
I can still remember years ago when the prototype ‘smart glasses’ (see image below), or whatever they were called, were new. Some fucker tried to pull off a demo in a small community pub, but someone noticed his gigantic weird frames and caught on. MFer got bum-rushed out the front door under threat of a serious ass-kicking, and anyone who’s seen a crowd of pub regulars work someone over knows what I mean. They should be too scared to pull this shit on women.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4b9d77ed-1710-45ce-b7e3-7a38bc16d554.jpeg">