• Neineon77@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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

  • GraniteM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        17 hours ago

        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!

        • reksas@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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.

        • Derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Maybe he was taken aside and questioned afterwards, hopefully. Or, rather, they don’t show critical infrastructure to strangers at all.

  • Universal Record@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Smart glasses are probably where the privacy debate around AI becomes truly mainstream. Phones are visible, wearable AI cameras are much harder for people to recognize in real time. It feels like society is heading toward a major legal and ethical adjustment period.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      A person can already LOOK anywhere they want, and almost every inch of ground is covered by surveillance cameras that are recording your every move.

      This just combines two things that are already happening. When it gets to court, I doubt a judge is going to care much.

  • Nomorereddit@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    When capitalism is failing and hope gets diminished, extortion is just another revenue stream. Money, money, money, Mahn-eh!

  • Denixen@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    What did she do that was humiliating? I get not wanting random videos of oneself online, but why is she so anxious about the video? She was just shopping, what so embarrassing about that?

    • nek0d3r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Could even be nothing. I’m imagining part of it being social engineering, gaslight people into thinking the video you have of them is embarrasing

      • naun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Or baiting people into reactive abuse, and editing the video to make it look like they were the aggressor.

  • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I swear if someone approaches me with these glasses they’re going to find out just how fragile those frames are.

    • sanitation@lemmy.radioOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Complain to management about secret surveillance . That’s how original Google glasses were defeated

      • titanicx@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.

      • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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.

  • Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    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…

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 hours ago

      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.

      • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 day ago

        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

        • pilferjinx@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Any public servants, really. Private citizens in public should have a bit of protection from potential harassment.

      • toynbee@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        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 solutions and there may be situations where violence is warranted, but it is surprising to me that it seems to be the default.

        • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

          • toynbee@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            22 hours ago

            That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.

            FWIW, my state is basically the opposite of land locked. I’m not comfortable with telling lies. I don’t mind saying things that are inaccurate to make someone laugh but I don’t want to make anyone believe those claims.

            • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              15 hours ago

              That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.

              The landshark U-boats are a real menace. They can climb out of a farmer’s pond like walking catfish and the next thing you know, they’re torpedoing a grain silo in Peoria.

              • toynbee@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                15 hours ago

                One of my groomsmen always defended his fear of water by saying “there could be kaiju army crawling under there, you don’t know!”

  • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    someone ever tries to extort me was going to have a bad time anyway, but I will literally shove these glasses up their asshole. then we both have something over on the other.

    1000003773

  • Maestro@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    If I ever see someone wearing smart glasses near me I will slap them off their face.

    • auzy1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      You’ll assault them?

      Like all those maga people who hate pedophiles (apparently)

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Are you sure you’d be able to tell? These people are actively looking for ways to disguise these things so that you can’t tell that they’re wearing them.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      what about people with phones ? how does recording a video, or taking a photo in a public place justify violence?

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Type shirt button camera into Google. Those are even less obvious than chunky glasses.

          The problem is the blackmail perverts not the tech. (Athough metas glasses are a privacy nightmare by design).

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, that phone in my shirt pocket set to record really gets noticed… by exactly nobody.

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Yeah, I do this all the time actually. Grocery shopping and the wife wants to FaceTime? Shirt pocket. No one even gives it a first glance, never mind second.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          23 hours ago

          If you use a wide-angle-lense on a samsung, you can be angled 45 degrees away from your target.

          All recording devices need to make it abundantly obvious you’re recording and have interlocks so that if those ways are defeated, it’s noticed and they refuse to record.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        If I catch a glasshole directing their gaze at me, I’ll beer batter them, them deep fry them, head, glasses and all.

          • 5wim@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Nah

            “Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”

            • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Seems like pushing the definition of battery, buy I guess it does call for battering someone under certain conditions. 😅

              • 5wim@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                14 hours ago

                I think I understand where you’re coming from, and this is mostly humor and pedantry on my part, but given that the definition of “battery” is “unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact,” the quote from Gandhi isn’t “pushing” it, rather is in perfect alignment, as he stated “unlawful” use as his acceptable use of violence.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        you don’t consider deliberately invading people’s privacy a form of assault?

        that’s fucking cute.

        • TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          18 hours ago

          It may well be in certain conditions. But if someone is assaulting you and you defend yourself, that isn’t battery. So I’m not sure how it relates to my point.

          If you just go smack the glasses off someone’s face because you don’t like them, you are the asshole

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            you want to invade people’s privacy casually, and not have them react. so smacking it is, when I see glassholes like you, hands are gonna fly.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            on the street, for sure. In line at the pharmacy?

            at the gym?

            I normally like your responses but this one misses a tremendous amount of spaces that blur the line between public and private. I’m a huge advocate for photography, it’s not a crime, but also, these devices are enabling the worst creeps to get away with monumental invasions of privacy.

              • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                I think there seems to be extensive confusion between the terms “illegal” and “socially unacceptable”. There are tons of objectively and widely agreed-upon reprehensible actions that are perfectly legal. The argument “but the law is clear on this matter”, is largely irrelevant in the context of the conversation we are having here.

            • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              I would not expect privacy in those places (excepting the bathrooms and locker rooms), either, unless the specific retailer or gym had a policy against filming other patrons. And even then, I would expect them to be filming me anyway as part of their security.

              I’m not for people filming everything, everywhere but I am also not naive to expect a level of privacy out and about among other people outside of your home, therapy, or a doctor’s office.

              • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                security cameras run by the establishment are not the same as earpod cams maneuvered into place to watch some poor woman do squats. it’s who’s controlling the footage and storing the take - those are very different things!

                none of this is rocket science either. the pub doesn’t put cameras in above the urinals - the creep standing next to you recording your junk - is that in public? it’s in a public place.

                no thanks.

          • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            If you’re in public, you have no expectation of privacy.

            Yes, from the eyes of the people immediately around me. I do not expect to be taken in picture form that can be either stored forever or transmitted everywhere all at once.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Most places disagree with you. You walking down the street means you’re walking in front of doorbell cameras, dash cams, general surveillance cameras, the guy shooting a tick tock video, and more.

              Someone wearing glasses that record isn’t any more invasive than any of those, is it?

          • rumba@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            100% accurate, you do also have stalking laws, but just the simple act of recording and not following is generally protected.

          • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            if it people is following and recording you, or trying to get a picture of your privates, you should not complain about it to the person stalking you.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            ah yes, there’s only space that’s private or public, there’s never any appropriate shades of nuance.

            wonder how people would feel about you filming their kids’ school. or at the gym, or waiting in dr’s office, etc., etc.,

            people should have the right to not be creeped on by shitty assholes.

            • Darkenfolk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Those are not public spaces? There might be shades of nuances, but they are at least not found in your examples.

              I can at least agree with the creepy assholes part, where it is justified.

              • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                the mall’s public. if some creep upskirts your wife/kids there, guess that’s just fine huh?

            • TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Yes, that’s why there are harassment laws.

              Schools and gyms are not public spaces you dildo

              • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                you dildo

                cool, so it’s a no moderation free fire zone.

                Look, you unreconstructed whelp of a whore, the law only helps if you can get the police state to react in time. What, you gonna call 911 for the slave catchers to come every time you see a pair of glasses? because if they’ve deactivated the recording light (WHICH, YO, DUMBFUCK, THERE’S A VIDEO OF SOMEONE LOOKING FOR THIS SERVICE IN THIS POST’S COMMENTS) how would you know whether or not they’re upskirting your daughter on the fucking escalator?

                You’re either so smoothbrained you lack the imagination required to make that tiny leap, or, you’re advocating on behalf of the fucking perverts, and should be cast into the bowels of hell with all the other kiddy diddler pervert shitbags.

                GET FUCKED WITH A BLOWTORCH YOU SUBHUMAN SHITBAG

        • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          cameras everywhere; phones, CCTV etc their is no expectation of privacy in a public space.

          Recording police beating someone should be allowed for example, yet you’ll go over and slap the glasses off their face as they record the cops beating someone to respect the cops right to privacy?

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Wow, what a great spinner of strawman tales you’re growing up to be!

            No, it’s the perv at the bar looking down blouses, it’s the creepazoid on the escalators looking up skirts. It’s the animal spending far too much time loitering around your kids’ school entrance.

            See, two can play imagination!

            But only one of our examples is actually a thing, eh? Your example has never happened. My examples have happened over and over again with PHONES. ffs

            • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              Buses, trains, and subways. No one expects the dude sitting across the car to be filming up their skirt. Well, they might, but it would be more obvious in the past.

              • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 hours ago

                yup. it’s disgusting we have to spell out ‘pervs are already doing it, you’re just improving their pervert equipment for higher production values you sick fucks’

        • TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Yes, I agree. So is the right to not have your shit rocked out in a public street because someone doesn’t like the shape of your camera

          • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 hours ago

            If someone breaches any part of the social contract, it seems a little rich to for them to lean on its protections while they’re doing it.

            • TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              What part of the social contract is being breached by filming in public with a glasses shaped camera vs a regular camera

              • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I don’t think the shape of the camera matters half as much as:

                • overtly brandishing it at someone
                • trying to hide the fact that you are brandishing at someone (like by hiding it in your glasses)

                Those actions are seen as aggressions by many, many people, as can be seen in the fallout from the original Google Glass, because there is an implicit desire to frame the target as guilty of something.

                I’m sure this part is obvious now as it follows directly from above, but unprovoked aggressions violate the social contract, and brandishing cameras or surreptitiously recording people are widely regarded as aggressions.

  • Universal Record@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Smart glasses are probably where the privacy debate around AI becomes truly mainstream. Phones are visible, wearable AI cameras are much harder for people to recognize in real time. It feels like society is heading toward a major legal and ethical adjustment period.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      apple’s already working on putting them in earbuds. ostensibly so they can track the world around the user and provide AI prompts.

      and pendants and other shit.

      like we really need more cameras everywhere. I hope the women of the world sue apple into bankruptcy because the already horrible pervert camera crowd is about to explode