A clear violation of the social contract deserves a swift response. Those glasses come off your face, and onto the pavement.
Comment on Dumb glasses
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days agoStop advocating violence against people who might be recording video in public, just because the device doing it is on their face.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
lumen@feddit.nl 2 days ago
No they don’t. I might actually go film on the sidewalk just outside your home, and there would be nothing at all you can do about it.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Using “nearby glasses” set to 20m to detect the glasses’ Bluetooth signature (plan on making that a module I can attach to the front doorframe), I can easily detect the presence of your classes. Then, you shall have two options after I speak to you. Surrender the glasses, or speak to my personal attorney. Or if I’m not at home, my drone, which will ram into your face to destroy the glasses.
lumen@feddit.nl 2 days ago
I don’t appreciate the threat of violence. I won’t surrender my property to you, you will not destroy my property, you will not hurt me without me defending myself, and your attorney will not bend the law for you.
nile_istic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I think the real problem is that you don’t seem to realize/care how gross and rapey you sound. That’s… maybe something to work on.
xtr0n@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
This may be perfectly legal but it is absolutely a dick move and people will HATE you for it. The are so many scenarios where perfectly reasonable people will find this behavior extremely unsettling, at best, and possibly threatening.
And you are incorrect in assuming that “there would be nothing [the subject] can do about it “. In the real world there are plenty of people who will risk an assault charge to deal with someone being a disrespectful dick, and many more who will act if they feel threatened.
Now, might doesn’t make right, but are you right? Going against social norms and risking extrajudicial retaliation to fight injustice is commendable. But this isn’t sitting at a lunch counter during segregation or protesting at Stonewall. In a world where 1 in 3 women will be stalked in her lifetime ( in the US according to the Justice Department), why is this the hill you want to die upon?
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
Who made this social contract? I certainly didn’t. You want to be able to tell everyone else what the social contract is, and assault them if they don’t comply.
Fascist.
matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
When you say “fascist”, you do realize that fascism involves crowd control and these glasses are a dream for a fascist regime? All the speech about “cameras everywhere is ok” falls right in the authoritarianism thinking, that’s just a step from fascism.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
Control of the public sphere is not a hallmark of fascism, no. Control of the private sphere is.
Either way though, using violence to force your political views on others is more fascist and more wrong than any amount of surveillance.
jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 2 days ago
This account ^ is going very far out of its way to make very bad points and overlook obvious gaping privacy violations, which are things that can be both identified and stopped.
The takeaway of massively privacy invading glasses is they can always be stopped at both the individual and the systemic level.
Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording. If you don’t want to be recorded, you can just stay the fuck away from them. You can’t avoid cameras/recording devices you can’t see. Fuck meta, and fuck anyone else wearing their garbage, privacy invading glasses.
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 days ago
It’s easy to see someone holding up a camera or cell phone making it obvious they are recording.
Really? I routinely keep my phone in my breast pocket whenever I wear a shirt with one, and enough of it sticks out for the camera to see above the top of the pocket. I’d look no different recording or not, let alone it being obvious if I’m doing it. It’d be shaky body-cam style footage, but that’s not the point.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
Yeah, it’ll be really hard to spot the giant dorky glasses with the laser beam recording LED.
Of course, in practice you don’t behave differently when you spot someone holding their phone up in the street, because you’re already behaving like you’re being watched because you’re in fucking public.
xtr0n@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
People with legal issues, immigration issues or violent exes will absolutely dip if they see someone recording. I have none of these problems and I will always avoid gettIng recorded by randos if it’s easy to do so. I can’t reasonably avoid every Ring cam in my neighborhood but I will happily slide 10 feet to the left to avoid becoming collateral damage in some dbags insta reel.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
So you can do the same thing when you see someone wearing the glasses, then. You won’t always be able to spot them, of course. Just like you can’t spot if someone’s filming on their phone all the way down a train carriage, or in a crowd.
If your immigration and law enforcement agencies are so awful (I assume most people here are American, and so they are) that normal people recording videos risks harm to people who haven’t done anything wrong, then it seems like the focus should be on that first, and video recording in general second.
People in this thread want to punch wearers of smart glasses because they hate Zuck. They all have issues if their rage comes out that way.
WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Nah. Violence against them is okay.
Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
If you wear the video glasses, expect to be fucking punched or worse. Jackass.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
I’m not going to wear the video glasses. But if I see someone assaulting someone over some stupid gadget, I’m going to try and help that person. Take your violent fantasies elsewhere, sicko.
Onyxonblack@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
And then we will beat your fucking dumb ass too. Loser trash fucker.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights
lumen@feddit.nl 2 days ago
What right would be violated here exactly?
baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de [bot] 2 days ago
facebook knowing my personal information against my will goes against my right to privacy. there are also the ethics of recording people in secret instead of making it very obvious. no, a blinking red dot does not count, and it can also be covered with a special purpose-made made black sticker.
now that i think about it, I’m just not comfortable being filmed by strangers at all, in any way, regardless of where the images end up.
i don’t think people should get used to it either. it’s incredibly creepy, even if no law is broken where you live.
and yes, i do understand that in many places just being in public reduces your right to privacy so that you’re legally allowed to be photographed as long as you’re not the focus. i don’t care. still creepy.
Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If recording in public wasn’t legal, then cops could legally arrest you for filming them brutalizing people for no reason.
Soulphite@reddthat.com 2 days ago
I’m sure you’re aware while you traverse in public you are on camera pretty much the entire time, right? There are cameras everywhere always filming, some you know about and can clearly see, some you will never know about and never see. Your face is in a database whether you consent or not.
The part about Facebook knowing your information without your consent? Do you have an account with them?
lumen@feddit.nl 2 days ago
I agree it can be creepy. But where I live, and in the US, as well as many other countries, you have no expectation of privacy in public. That’s why it’s called public. It might feel right to want to impose some restrictions on public photography, but since there’s absolutely no way to fairly draw a line, it’s better to not impose limits at all.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook does the unreasonable searching and we pay them for any data they collect
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Gee… try hanging out at a playground with these glasses and get back to us.
Soulphite@reddthat.com 2 days ago
Funny how people think they have a “right” of privacy in public… there is absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. Besides, there are cameras EVERYWHERE always filming.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
This only makes sense if you imagine rights are granted to you by your wise and benevolent king when he’s in a good mood and no one else.
lumen@feddit.nl 2 days ago
And you’re the second person in this thread who can think. Thank you.
I’ve been threatened with violence twice already in this very thread, in the hypothetical scenario that I would film them. I don’t think Lemmy is for me. Too violent.
lauha@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Quite many when used anywhere except in public space.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
You don’t have the right not to be filmed in public. Do you punch every person filming in public? and if you punch someone wearing the glasses, most likely they weren’t even recording.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*Unless Facebook is the one doing the unreasonable search, and we simply buy their data
Sweet summer child
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
You didn’t answer the question. You could just have said that you’re overreacting because it’s tech associated with Meta and you don’t like them, even though it’s basically the same as a phone, just on your face.
You think smart glasses have enough battery to record constantly? lol.
EisFrei@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You do in Germany, except during events/gatherings/marches.
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should
not go around punching people for violating a legal right they do not have. Your discomfort at maybe having your picture doesn’t entitle you to violence.
srestegosaurio@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Uhhhh, you actually do.* I am not sure if you know, but different places have different laws.
Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Not in the US
matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Most likely either the glasses are in a state of recording, or the wearer has no idea what it’s doing. Damned! After so many scandals, people still assume Meta will do what it claims and not trick its users! Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me! Fool me 42 times, more, please MOOOOORE!
FishFace@piefed.social 2 days ago
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving battery capacity and power consumption puts that idea to bed.