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.
I am aware. If the yanks want to copy it then they should
overthrow the orange turd
campaign for it democratically
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.
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
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.
You mean you can’t tell the difference between someone visibly recording you and someone recording you with a hidden camera? You feel like both of those are the same thing?
I feel like if the problem is being recorded, it doesn’t matter whether it’s done with a hidden or visible camera.
I feel like if the problem is being secretly recorded, you should be just as mad at bags possibly being used to xonceal a recording phone as at these glasses.
If I see someone filming me, I ask them to stop. That will escalate if they don’t.
I think what people are missing here is the intention. There’s generalised filming of your surroundings, surveillance cameras…these glasses are intended for use in a social capacity. That will move into privacy issues and perverted use.
These peoples right to use these glasses, as far as I’m concerned, does not eclipse my privacy or lack of desire to be filmed and put on Metas platforms and if I find someone using them on me they’ll be fucking told.
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!
Recording from a camera consumes upwards of 1W on mobile platforms. With the ~160mAh battery in Ray Ban Meta smart glasses, the battery would last about 40 minutes, assuming they are doing nothing else. Given that the radio needs to be powered to upload that footage somewhere, and doing all this will keep the SoC in a higher wake state, that is a very optimistic upper bound.
I’m sorry that you and everyone who downvoted me think that hating on Meta is more real than physics.
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 without consent 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.
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?
The proliferation of cameras in public is not a good thing. I am yet to see data showing it reduces criminality (supposed to be the intent), meanwhile it’s a massive surveillance system.
And the fact that a given situation is bad is hardly a good argument to promote making it worse.
Meta collects data on everyone: from contact info in cellphone through their apps, uploaded photos, videos etc.
If you don’t have an account nor consent to anything, they will just not show the data, but will still build the profile combining different sources and feed it to its algorithms.
Facebook has a profile on everyone. Accounts or not. They are just like every other data broker. All they want is access to more data and more data.
All that medical data is the holy grail… Anyone who thinks medical data will remain private is naive. All it takes is very deep pockets and lawmakers who want contributions to change the laws.
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.
there’s absolutely a way to draw a line. no smart glasses. even if there wasn’t, no regulation for the sake of regulators being too dumb is the worst take possible.
No smart glasses. Alright, then I would wear hidden camera’s in the buttons of my shirt. The point I’m trying to make here, is that this is not a technological debate. It’s about freedoms: having your freedoms means having to respect others’ as well.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nah, I see someone wearing a nazi armband, they are getting decked. It’s still assault and against the law, but still the right thing to do in regards to maintaining the social contract.
Political violence is sometimes necessary unfortunately.
You don’t believe there is a risk the people storing and using tjat footage data could use it for violence or inflicting even in it’s broadest definition of violence?
But that isn’t my point. I was always concerned with the political violence is never the answer sentiments.
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.
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 meta lenses. 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.
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.
You really want these glasses, don’t you? You’re smart enough to debate the hypothetical, but miss the obvious point that new things will not be regulated as they should be, so the law doesn’t function as it should in this situation. You cling tightly to the law as if it’s doing what it’s meant to do, when we both know you’d be taking advantage of the lack of laws for no clear benefit.
Let’s say hypothetically that he assaults you, you sue him, then he raises 200k$ for his defense through crowdfunding because I bet the majority of people don’t want creeps to record them secretly. You’re still confident in your odds?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The glasses are much more difficult to detect than someone holding up a phone to record. Will the glasses always look super obvious? The old Google ones were ginormous, I don’t know if I would recognize the FB ones in the wild.
You can generally tell when a phone camera is pointed in your general direction within a reasonable range. It’s uncommon enough for people to do this in public outside of large crowds (concerts, sporting events, etc) that avoiding those situations isn’t an undue burden. With the glasses, can you tell whether they’re recording or do you just have to assume that they’re always recording?
This is a non trivial escalation and I will definitely shun and or shame anyone I encounter with this trash tech.
And there is nothing wrong with hating Zuck, his companies and the other billionaires destroying society. If you don’t have issues with existential threats then that is a bigger issue.
The glasses are very chunky. They have a light to show they’re recording, and if you deliberately disable it you could just as well conceal your phone or whatever in a bag.
There’s nothing wrong with hating Zuck, but that shouldn’t extend to uncritically hating everything relating to him and his companies to the point where you’re willing to advocate or excuse violence against his customers, which is happening here.
If I spot one in a public place, and I start filming them while shouting “Are you recording a video right now with these smartglasses?”, I guess that would be totally fine, right? No reason to make them uncomfortable, because they’ll be in their right.
It’s absolutely legal to film them as you said, and it is absolutely legal to speak up. If that makes them uncomfortable, that’s entirely their problem, isn’t it?
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.
All I’m saying is last time this tech trend came around, enough people who had a problem with it took drastic actions that directly affected the popularity of wearing a spycam on your face.
Wouldn’t surprise or upset me if history repeated itself.
Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.
I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can’t behave.
Look, taking such glasses into a locker room is a problem. But someone wearing them in public is not. Anyone punching someone who does that should be taken to jail, simple as that.
I’d say there are some valid use cases. Like sports? Biking, skiing, anywhere you might use a GoPro. This might work for sports where it is impractical to wear a GoPro.
Also if they did this right, if it had a decent hud and zoom, this could be really helpful for the visually impaired or for other disabilities or medical conditions. That’s where these would be really helpful to society. But they never focus on that kind of shit. Instead it’s tech bros who want to sell this as a gimmick people can record themselves fucking, or stupid shit in the bar for their TikTok.
If you think something is wrong then, unless that risk places you at actual risk of harm, you can have that conversation - in public forums, at the ballot box, with your political representatives. If, rather, you want to dictate what you think is right on everyone, with threat of violence then that is something else.
nothing is being dictated. surveillance is violence. if you harm me, maybe i will reduce that harm, also using violence. fuck around and find out logic.
The Gestapo, known for using violence to suppress the activities of those they don’t like without allowing the public to come to a democratic decision on the matter? Interesting.
Amid a second Trump presidency that is going very poorly is truly a wild time to start crowing about a person’s rightful freedom to be dumb on purpose.
violence is the answer against people who already commit violence. reducing your sense of privacy and safety is violence. not to mention that this data could be used for ICE’s benefit, which would even add physical violence.
Filming in public is not a form of violence in and of itself. Have you ever noticed that the public is called “public”, which is the opposite of “private”?
sharing that information with facebook is the violence. i don’t care if you take a photo and print it out to have it in a photo album. i care when i am in a big tech database, or even worse, an intelligence agency database. not that the two are very separate.
That’s a twisted view on the definition of violence… Anyhow, how would you distinguish between people filming for journalistic purposes, people filming and sending it to Meta, and people filming for other reasons? How would you decide who deserves your violence?
if i feel uncomfortable being filmed i will make myself heard, first nonviolently, then maybe with a bit of physical pressure. if I don’t even get to know when i am being filmed that’s intensely devious.
Stopped this bullshit for a decade or so
Stop advocating violence against people who might be recording video in public, just because the device doing it is on their face.
Nah. Violence against them is okay.
You actually should advocate for violence against people who are violating your rights
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.
Uhhhh, you actually do.* I am not sure if you know, but different places have different laws.
Not in the US
You do in Germany, except during events/gatherings/marches.
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.
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
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.
You mean you can’t tell the difference between someone visibly recording you and someone recording you with a hidden camera? You feel like both of those are the same thing?
I feel like if the problem is being recorded, it doesn’t matter whether it’s done with a hidden or visible camera.
I feel like if the problem is being secretly recorded, you should be just as mad at bags possibly being used to xonceal a recording phone as at these glasses.
If I see someone filming me, I ask them to stop. That will escalate if they don’t.
I think what people are missing here is the intention. There’s generalised filming of your surroundings, surveillance cameras…these glasses are intended for use in a social capacity. That will move into privacy issues and perverted use.
These peoples right to use these glasses, as far as I’m concerned, does not eclipse my privacy or lack of desire to be filmed and put on Metas platforms and if I find someone using them on me they’ll be fucking told.
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!
A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation involving battery capacity and power consumption puts that idea to bed.
Nope. These things can certainly take pics regularly and still last.
Recording from a camera consumes upwards of 1W on mobile platforms. With the ~160mAh battery in Ray Ban Meta smart glasses, the battery would last about 40 minutes, assuming they are doing nothing else. Given that the radio needs to be powered to upload that footage somewhere, and doing all this will keep the SoC in a higher wake state, that is a very optimistic upper bound.
I’m sorry that you and everyone who downvoted me think that hating on Meta is more real than physics.
What right would be violated here exactly?
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 without consent 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.
If recording in public wasn’t legal, then cops could legally arrest you for filming them brutalizing people for no reason.
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?
i know, doesn’t change my stance. i don’t have a facebook account, at most a shadow profile because others may talk about me
The proliferation of cameras in public is not a good thing. I am yet to see data showing it reduces criminality (supposed to be the intent), meanwhile it’s a massive surveillance system.
And the fact that a given situation is bad is hardly a good argument to promote making it worse.
Meta collects data on everyone: from contact info in cellphone through their apps, uploaded photos, videos etc. If you don’t have an account nor consent to anything, they will just not show the data, but will still build the profile combining different sources and feed it to its algorithms.
It has been a well known practice for many years.
Facebook has a profile on everyone. Accounts or not. They are just like every other data broker. All they want is access to more data and more data.
All that medical data is the holy grail… Anyone who thinks medical data will remain private is naive. All it takes is very deep pockets and lawmakers who want contributions to change the laws.
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.
there’s absolutely a way to draw a line. no smart glasses. even if there wasn’t, no regulation for the sake of regulators being too dumb is the worst take possible.
No smart glasses. Alright, then I would wear hidden camera’s in the buttons of my shirt. The point I’m trying to make here, is that this is not a technological debate. It’s about freedoms: having your freedoms means having to respect others’ as well.
Like respecting others’ freedom to a reasonable degree of privacy.
why the need for hidden recording equipment anyway? do you wanna spy on women that badly?
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
Quite many when used anywhere except in public space.
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.
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.
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.
Bye, then
We will not miss you
A clear violation of the social contract deserves a swift response. Those glasses come off your face, and onto the pavement.
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.
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.
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.
You obviously know nothing about fascism.
Nah, I see someone wearing a nazi armband, they are getting decked. It’s still assault and against the law, but still the right thing to do in regards to maintaining the social contract.
Political violence is sometimes necessary unfortunately.
You might argue that someone wearing a Nazi armband is threatening violence due to the inherent violence of Nazi ideology.
The same cannot be said for wearing some dorky glasses, no matter how much you hate them.
You don’t believe there is a risk the people storing and using tjat footage data could use it for violence or inflicting even in it’s broadest definition of violence?
But that isn’t my point. I was always concerned with the political violence is never the answer sentiments.
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.
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.
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.
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 meta lenses. 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.
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.
You really want these glasses, don’t you? You’re smart enough to debate the hypothetical, but miss the obvious point that new things will not be regulated as they should be, so the law doesn’t function as it should in this situation. You cling tightly to the law as if it’s doing what it’s meant to do, when we both know you’d be taking advantage of the lack of laws for no clear benefit.
What?
What part didn’t you understand?
Actually insufferable.
Let’s say hypothetically that he assaults you, you sue him, then he raises 200k$ for his defense through crowdfunding because I bet the majority of people don’t want creeps to record them secretly. You’re still confident in your odds?
Removed by mod
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?
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.
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.
Not relevant to the discussion, but how have you not managed to lose your phone to the toilet bowl putting in your front pocket like that?
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.
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.
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.
The glasses are much more difficult to detect than someone holding up a phone to record. Will the glasses always look super obvious? The old Google ones were ginormous, I don’t know if I would recognize the FB ones in the wild.
You can generally tell when a phone camera is pointed in your general direction within a reasonable range. It’s uncommon enough for people to do this in public outside of large crowds (concerts, sporting events, etc) that avoiding those situations isn’t an undue burden. With the glasses, can you tell whether they’re recording or do you just have to assume that they’re always recording?
This is a non trivial escalation and I will definitely shun and or shame anyone I encounter with this trash tech.
And there is nothing wrong with hating Zuck, his companies and the other billionaires destroying society. If you don’t have issues with existential threats then that is a bigger issue.
The glasses are very chunky. They have a light to show they’re recording, and if you deliberately disable it you could just as well conceal your phone or whatever in a bag.
There’s nothing wrong with hating Zuck, but that shouldn’t extend to uncritically hating everything relating to him and his companies to the point where you’re willing to advocate or excuse violence against his customers, which is happening here.
If I spot one in a public place, and I start filming them while shouting “Are you recording a video right now with these smartglasses?”, I guess that would be totally fine, right? No reason to make them uncomfortable, because they’ll be in their right.
Yeah, that would be very different than punching them, obviously?
It’s absolutely legal to film them as you said, and it is absolutely legal to speak up. If that makes them uncomfortable, that’s entirely their problem, isn’t it?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
But violence isn’t the answer. And certainly not to people doing legal stuff in public. Wearing a Google Glass in private is different though.
Violence is SO often the answer.
All I’m saying is last time this tech trend came around, enough people who had a problem with it took drastic actions that directly affected the popularity of wearing a spycam on your face.
Wouldn’t surprise or upset me if history repeated itself.
Wouldn’t surprise me either. But it’s a hugely illogical reaction.
You can make the claim that it’s immoral or something, but you cannot claim it’s illogical.
Its not. I wish we lived in a world where we could be trusted with things like this, but we dont.
I really want a camera on my face and a HUD so I can live life more like a video game with screenshots, but we as a species have shown time and time again that we can’t behave.
Id rather nobody have one.
Look, taking such glasses into a locker room is a problem. But someone wearing them in public is not. Anyone punching someone who does that should be taken to jail, simple as that.
What about if we jail the people who wear spycams in public first? Then there won’t be any violence.
And would you make an exception for journalistic purposes? Serious question.
I’d say there are some valid use cases. Like sports? Biking, skiing, anywhere you might use a GoPro. This might work for sports where it is impractical to wear a GoPro. Also if they did this right, if it had a decent hud and zoom, this could be really helpful for the visually impaired or for other disabilities or medical conditions. That’s where these would be really helpful to society. But they never focus on that kind of shit. Instead it’s tech bros who want to sell this as a gimmick people can record themselves fucking, or stupid shit in the bar for their TikTok.
You can license journalists, same way we do automobile drivers.
How is it illogical if it worked? It might be immoral, but there’s a clear through-line of cause and effect.
It’s illogical because you’re being recorded for far more nefarious purposes anyways.
There’s fists to go around, guy
It’s never illogical to want less of a bad thing.
We don’t like those methods either. And?
Humans are illogical in most cases. It’s something you have to put up with when living in a society.
Just because its legal doesn’t mean its right
If you think something is wrong then, unless that risk places you at actual risk of harm, you can have that conversation - in public forums, at the ballot box, with your political representatives. If, rather, you want to dictate what you think is right on everyone, with threat of violence then that is something else.
Surveillance is a form of violence that those wearing the glasses are imposing on us.
You need to look up “violence” in the dictionary.
nothing is being dictated. surveillance is violence. if you harm me, maybe i will reduce that harm, also using violence. fuck around and find out logic.
You need to look up “violence” and “harm” in the dictionary.
If you wear this, you’re an agent of the gestapo.
The Gestapo, known for using violence to suppress the activities of those they don’t like without allowing the public to come to a democratic decision on the matter? Interesting.
No, you’re like one of the folks ratting out their neighbors to the gestapo.
He won’t even know he’s doing it. Why would anyone assume wearers have any control on these smartglasses and what they upload?
No I know what you were saying.
See, what’s “right” is a (shared) opinion. One of the consequences of living in a free country is that other people can have their own opinions.
Amid a second Trump presidency that is going very poorly is truly a wild time to start crowing about a person’s rightful freedom to be dumb on purpose.
deleted by creator
The smartest thing you did today was delete that comment. What happened, did you have an epiphany?
I realized arguing with a dipshit like you was beneath me
No that’s not what happened. You realised justifying physical violence with your personal feelings and beliefs isn’t right.
👶🍼
Have fun beating up journalists! I’m glad you aren’t a politician.
violence is the answer against people who already commit violence. reducing your sense of privacy and safety is violence. not to mention that this data could be used for ICE’s benefit, which would even add physical violence.
I agreed with you up to this statement, no Karen, getting filmed in public is not violence, even if it’s concealed, Jesus Christ
Filming in public is not a form of violence in and of itself. Have you ever noticed that the public is called “public”, which is the opposite of “private”?
sharing that information with facebook is the violence. i don’t care if you take a photo and print it out to have it in a photo album. i care when i am in a big tech database, or even worse, an intelligence agency database. not that the two are very separate.
That’s a twisted view on the definition of violence… Anyhow, how would you distinguish between people filming for journalistic purposes, people filming and sending it to Meta, and people filming for other reasons? How would you decide who deserves your violence?
if i feel uncomfortable being filmed i will make myself heard, first nonviolently, then maybe with a bit of physical pressure. if I don’t even get to know when i am being filmed that’s intensely devious.
You can’t force people to act on you’re subjective feeling of being uncomfortable. Can’t.
We can by making it illegal. I mean, what other purpose do laws serve?
people shouldn’t make others uncomfortable.
Removed by mod
When the law abandons the people, the law of the jungle returns.
One of those people
?
A loser
Are you calling me a loser? If so, would you care explaining why you consider me a loser?