A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.
Wearing this shit in public should lose you an eye.
While Meta built in a small LED light in the front of its glasses to indicate when it’s recording a video, it can easily be covered by a small piece of tape, making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent. As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.
I was under the impression that covering the LED would prevent the camera function from working. I guess it doesn’t.
Of course it doesn’t. It’s the finest in modern creep technology.
making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent.
Hang on. I don’t need Meta glasses to spy on strangers in public. I can creep perfectly fine in my mirrored sunglasses.
huh? people in public can be recorded without their consent. that’s what being in public is.
Great!
He went out in public with the intention of provoking strangers, recording their reactions, and publishing it on the internet for profit. A stranger got a bit more provoked than he had preferred. It turns out that some people won’t be fine with being provoked, recorded, and published on the internet. How strange.
And now because of all of the media attention being generated he’s getting exactly what he wants. Millions and millions of views on his TikTok. He will likely be able to afford brand new glasses in less than a week.
trolls taking to the streets has taken a new timbre
I mean people could record you with their phones fairly easily and not look like they are.
A phone is easier to spot and figure it might be recording, not everyone is expecting the glasses to be recording
Tough. You ARE being recorded, all the time. Personal concealed cameras are totally okay.
“You’re going to be famous on the Internet!”
Lol, he’s right but not the way he thinks.
In the meantime, eth8n claims to have “filed a claim with the police and it’s a misdemeanor charge.”
“What she did was assault, can get arrested for it if I see her again and felt like it,” he wrote.
This guy sounds like such an annoying little bitch.
Who else would wear this shit?
I suffer from prosopagnosia (face blindness), so facial recognition would be legitimately useful for me.
Unfortunately it’s unlikely for this to be implemented in a privacy-respecting way. Arguably, even if it never “phones home”, it’s always going to be a more risky option—e.g. police can seize the glasses and see who you’ve seen, whereas they can’t seize your brain and see what faces you’ve seen. You might be fine with that risk, but will everyone you ever meet be fine with it?
People with the need for A/R overlays on their vision? I can see their use in very specific situations but IDK why you would constantly wear them.
This tech for blind people could become fantastic, ai in general should be great for people with disabilities.
Same for a lot of jobs. I’m colourblind and can’t be an electrician, but if I had AR labelling the wires in basically real time it would be a different story.
Jackasses making weird noises on the subway and filming people ruin the potential of this stuff.
Sounds like a mini trump
“I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at,” he claimed in the caption of a followup video. “She was the only person annoyed.”
And then everyone clapped at the noises he was making, all the way to the next stop, and then President Obama got on the train at the next stop and gave him the Medal of Freedom for his bravery and letting the woman sit down.
Seriously did this motherfucker just move to the city, that he thinks anyone will believe that bullshit?
I’m willing to bet the crying laughter from people around him came after his glasses got snatched off his face and snapped.
I wonder if the people defending the dude know where the recordings go.
Would they still defend him if the recordings are sent to (or otherwise available to) Meta?
People defending the idiot probably don’t care about where the recordings go, so long as they go “on the internet” “for the lulz”
its uploaded into zuckerborgs android body.
You dropped this, queen. 👑
"I even let her sit down when she got on the train at 42nd street, and I continued to stand.”
Bro did nothing but stand still and is taking credit for “allowing” her to sit lmao
not sitting to leave the seat open for someone is still doing something, you just don’t see the action as it was a mental decision to leave the seat free for someone else. he could have easily just sat.
that said, screw his little spy glasses.
I’m sure it’s an unpopular opinion, but what she did is really shitty and she should be charged with it. She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
It’s really no different than if she smashed someone’s phone because they were recording video in public.
How about recording by video up her dress? This guy wants police involved? Ok, let’s review the video and see how many women he’s ogled in public.
Was he recording up her dress? Looks like she’s wearing jeans to me, personally
You spy on me for meta, turn yourself into a surveillance device, I will break something on you that doesn’t heal, and I still consider that generous.
Just losing his glasses was gracious m9deration on the part of this hero.
If your property trumps all over my privacy, I am the enemy of you having property. You are why we can’t have a fucking society.
No you won’t. You’re just talking big on the Internet.
She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
We don’t actually know that she didn’t, unless you’ve got another article with more detail. This article is sparse in details, but it’s only his word in it that she didn’t talk to him. That nobody was bothered by it. That it went from 0-100 in the span of a look.
And idk about you, but that doesn’t sound all that likely to me, when everyone laughs at him for the consequences (seen in video). The whole thing screams this guy is an unreliable narrator. The whole thing to me reads like he knew he was pissing people off, like a YouTube prank channel sort of bother, and expected to walk away from it consequence free.
This article has a bit more detail and it does make him sound like a shitty prank channel sort that relies on annoying other people going about their lives. But again has no info about the encounter except his own words.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/imagine-being-based-guy-says-143000399.html
Unpopular unpopular opinion: recording public places for yourself shouldn’t even be considered a bad tone. Distribution of those recordings should, unless they contain some illegal activity.
These go through Facebook’s servers. This is not a private recording.
This is a very unpopular opinion in my opinion
I hate everything about the dude in the video but breaking his property is a shitty response.
The problem with US society is a lack of shaming and negative enforcement.
Yeah. Should’ve broken his face too.
Exactly, thanks for saying what we’re all thinking: she absolutely should have broken his face
She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
Stop what? Wouldn’t there be a video of her breaking them if they were recording?
Counter point: if you start filming me in public without my permission your phone is getting smashed, and I don’t care how shitty anybody thinks it is.
I’m glad the law disagrees with you. Someone doing something you consider disrespectful doesn’t justify assault and property damage.
It sounds like you have some anger control issues going on if that’s your go-to response.
When you wake up and walk outside to the corner store, you’ve had like 40 devices filming you… lol
But they don’t follow you around focused on your tits and ass.
WTF dudes, you can stay home and jerk off with girls online happy to take your money.
Aren’t these usually CCTVs?
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I like this comment
Yeah but I can’t reach that high
Time for a new iteration of the selfie stick!
The un-selfie stick
deleted by creator
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I hate this comment
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
I’m indifferent about this comment
Those devices don’t get in your face, aren’t easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don’t follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
echo…
Yeah but there’s a difference between a security cam and someone filming me to mock me on the internet. And for the record I’m not stoked about everything else filming me either.
https://www.foia.gov/ - Entire youtube channels with millions of followers request city camera, body cams, court cams, traffic cams… everything… and mock you on the internet. I don’t disagree with your feelings just reminding you of the world we live in.
Places where those cameras are required the most: police officers’ cabins; mayors’ and legislatives’ offices.
If I could get away with it I would destroy those too.
That’s why in video games I smash everything in order to be safe.
… Are you a cop or something?
If you’re in a public space, people may be filming you.
It’s a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone’s phone.
TLDR: Control yourself, tough guy.
So, creepy men are now allowed to stare and record videos of women because technology allows it?
and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched
Funny how everyone agrees with the woman’s actions and finds them satisfying instead.
Yet you are trying to use this argument to defend the asshole guy. Well, watch the video again and see how not a single person said anything, clearly they all agreed with the woman’s actions and the guy got what he deserved.
Civil justice in progress when the laws and authorities fail.
Luckily laws can be changed. If there was a trial and a jury decided she is innocent, there would be precedent for all future cases to side with the person being filmed without consent and not the assholes.
“b… b… bUt iT wAs a PuBlIc PlaCe” - the assholes
Here’s different optics to consider: we know for many camera-enabled devices to deliver recordings to the cloud, where the data is used by authorities, often times in a very improper way.
In US, it is coordinating ICE raids; in other countries, it’s other kinds of shady and inhumane acts.
Fighting this on the level of legislation is great…when it works. Overturning the power of a dictator authority or simply struggling against decisions that are made up above often takes illegal, brutal acts, or at least ones of misdemeanor.
It sure never hurts to ask someone to stop first, but then I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
Whatever “angle” you see is yourmond trying to justify forcefully grabbing someone’s property to destroy it.
I don’t like surveillance either.
But you can’t go around forcefully breaking other people’s stuff unless it threatens your well being at that moment.
unless it threatens your well being at that moment
Which in this case it’s doing. Next.
The thing is, it may actually threaten someone’s wellbeing.
Surveillance, especially under a police state, can be a very clear and sometimes immediate threat.
Something being in a public space does not give everyone there free reign to do things that are rude. And given the upvotes/downvotes it seems like most people tend to agree with me here.
Fuck internet points.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn’t required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don’t want that, campaign for legislation to change it. “Rudeness” isn’t a legal term. If you can’t tolerate being recorded in a public space, even “rudely”, leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people’s safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can’t start a fight legally, but you can finish one. “Rudeness” isn’t a good enough reason to start swinging.
So again, control yourself.
So, we are now supposed to just let creeps video record women because they paid for fancy glasses? Anyone notice this was a young, attractive woman?
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there’s recordings of him.
Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested
…And you think cops in this century of 21 would stop there… why?
I didn’t suggest assaulting anyone, you’re trying to paint this in a more violent light than it is.
Forcefully grabbing someone’s property to break it is assault.
Then why is Donald Trump not in jail?
I was not going to downvote your comment despite disagreeing with it, but since you are now citing your downvote/upvote ratio as proof that most people support your position, you now get downvotes from me.
Im totally fine with that friend.
Do you happen to work for ICE?
And that’s ridiculous. You have no expectation of privacy in public. I thought the hate was overblown back in the Google Glass days, too.
It was a subway car, can he just grab her breasts? Ass? Where is the line on sexual assault? Let’s review Creepy McCreepface’s video and see exactly why this woman got upset.
So you’re cool with letting men video children in public parks? Because it’s technically legal?
You also should have, in a well-functioning society, no expectation of violation of personal rights (or even human rights) in public. Yet here we are.
Nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with someone attempting to openly mock me and throw me on the internet without the expectation of consequences. It’s about respect.
What a dumb take. Go back to putting up flock cams everywhere, cop-lover
It was self defense, and defense of others around her. In my book, that’s just about as much if not more than the police does these days.
A guy being annoying and recording a video in public is an immediate threat to yourself and others?
That sounds pretty fine. It’s when the video includes you and goes to a remote system that is the problem.
Yeah, this just makes anyone who opposes smart glasses look like bullies that are mad they can’t get away with assaulting people.
It is quite different, phones are useful devices that people rely on, this is not. More akin to breaking some useless annoying gadget like a toy siren or something
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is objectively wrong. They do provide functions that go above what a regular phone can do, and having a hud and hands free interaction at all times is objectively convenient.
You can argue that those convencies are very minor, and that they don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording (and particularly, no reliable way for someone to tell if they’re being recorded), which I entirely agree with. The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick. But claiming the glasses are equivalent to a toy serious is just objectively wrong.
If you’re arguing against something, and misrepresent the nature of that thing in your argument, it just makes the whole argument appear weak and contrived. You should always strongman whatever you’re arguing against, not strawman it. If it’s truly bad, you shouldn’t need strawman arguments to argue convincingly that it IS bad.
By that logic, its equal to a phone is an equal strawman. It is a way less vital device than a phone.
Privacy concerns aside, saying the glasses are literally useless is
My eyes glazed over as soon as I read this much.
Nothing you say after this matters for a device purpose built for non consensual and inconspicuous invasion of privacy
So I’m guessing you missed this part, then
don’t even remotely begin to justify the creepiness of constantly recording […], which I entirely agree with.
And this probably too…
The things are pieces of shit, and everyone who buys one is a dick
Seems like you read two words and then just decided to guess what the rest of the comment is about.
That isn’t what it is! That’s like pointing at a 3d printer and calling it a gun manufacturing station. Sure, it can be used for that, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.
Not sure exactly how serious you are, but you can use a 3D printer without making guns. You cannot use cameras like these in public without massively invading people’s privacy.
someone should have done this to robert scoble like ten years ago because it might have stopped the whole craze.
As long as someone doesn’t slap my AR glasses off my head because I’m watching reruns of Green Acres while I’m in a waiting room.
deleted by creator
