• mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    21 hours 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
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 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

      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 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
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          13 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?

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        16 hours 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
            ·
            6 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
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours 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
            ·
            15 hours 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.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 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.

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

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

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours 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.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      18 hours 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
        ·
        16 hours 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