glassholes never change
yes, please.
i think that is exactly the direction we should be pushing. this creepy compulsion to record random people is weird af.
Before, when it was he said, she said, it was always tenuous for the person with less power to pursue the issue. Now, they can finally access consequences for people violating their freedoms.
I don’t understand, people have the right to record their own bedrooms.
>And I don't think random people filming everything in bars/restaurants/night-clubs is a price I'm willing to pay just to make it easier to prosecute some crazies or drunken catcallers
But it is the price others are willing to pay. See how popular in car cameras are for taxi drivers, both for men and women. Or simply dash cams to prevent being caught in a costly litigation, with myriad accounts of intentional fraud disproven by video evidence.
It’s why calls are record for “quality assurance purposes”. People don’t expect that to not be recorded, simply because the cost to record came down a long time ago, but now the cost to record video has also come down.
This ridiculous idea that "it's in public so you have no expectation of privacy" is a semantic retcon, the pervasiveness of cameras is new and fundamentally changes your level of exposure in the public sphere. Overtly recording people in public is not really OK. Face-mounted, covert recording is another step too far and offensive to most people.
If you genuinely wish to understand the attitude, may I recommend doing a deep dive into the many fine articles written about this back in 2013-15, when Google failed to launch the original glasshole-wear.
This rules out the use of dash cams then.. but I'm sure you realize the public benefit those offer, so I'm reluctant to accept this argument.
I agree that dash cams are for the most part OK, because for the most part they're recording for safety reasons and evidence in case of accidents. But sitting in a coffee shop as a private citizen, recording everyone that comes in without any particular justification would not really be OK, covertly or overtly. Even though the owner might be doing the same thing for security.
So perhaps "covert recording of other people in public without an accepted, socially justifiable reason, is not OK"
Then you are going to have a hard time in a society filled with other humans, or living with a legal system that takes human complexity and grey areas into account in so many different ways.
Outside of a parser or a maths class, rules are rarely that concrete.
(Reading your other comments, I am sorry that your experiences have lead you to be so scared going about your day to day life that you think recording every interaction is a necessary thing to do. I'm afraid you're not going to find a lot of people who agree with that, and many who will find the idea very intrusive, though I suspect you're far from the only one in your position.
FYI if you go down this route, in some countries it is a legal, not just social, requirement that people be notified that you're recording them, particularly when it comes to audio, see one-party or two-party consent jurisdictions etc, while recording of direct threats may be legit, blanket recording of all interactions or of other people's conversations, as a precautionary measure, may not be)
Yes, and from my perspective that's corruption of society. We must at least make an effort to eliminate gray areas, otherwise we're failing our duty as citizens of that society.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Humans are walking grey areas. For any set of rules to be truly fair it must be flexible and be applied with compassion and understanding.
(1) a single or handful of security-angled cameras controlled by a local business for security purposes
(2) any individual possibly recording you at eye level at any second without you knowing, and having the ability to use and manipulate that footage and upload it to the internet
From my vantage, this appears to be a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. If you support filming in public spaces, but believe restricting that to only those you trust, then this is hypocrisy.
I’m comfortable with armed security at an airport. I’m less comfortable at a supermarket.
absolute rules only hold in math. in life, almost everything is a matter of degree and of details. that doesnt make it hypocrisy
Children have different labor restrictions than adults.
Police have different gun access than civilians.
Businesses pay a different set of taxes than individuals.
And allowing businesses to do camera surveillance when you enter their property is in no way the same as allowing everyone to videotape each other at all times covertly and without consent. I really can't understand what process of reasoning could even get you there, besides "equal rights absolutism," which makes no sense.
How did you arrive at this statement from "We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights"? Seems like you're making an appeal to extremes.
Additionally there are laws and expectations around cameras in places like bathrooms. Those laws still exist for smartglasses-wearers, but it can be hard to police if it is not obvious that the glasses have cameras and are recording.
How? This is just going to give a bunch of creepy men an easier way to film me. I'm dreading these getting mainstream adoption.
Damn, just how good is that coffee?
(if that's real, and pulling phone out really is dangerous, can't you just ask the employee to film next time it happens for 10 bucks?)
Where I live usually it takes a few eyewitnesses testifying for a police to take someone into custody for a few hours and give them a talk (like general "don't do it again or next time we will detain you for a 15 days" talk). And after a few talks, they would generally really just detain someone (it's different from a criminal record)
Not to mention the owner could just ban a person thatch bad for business. Or just install a camera, since police demands a proof.
From your retelling it seems like not only owner doesn't give a damn about it being bad for business, it's actually isn't even bad for business! You still go there, your friends still go there (do they know that you fear for your life filming the evidence of abuse for police to take action? Surely a friend would help you film this. Or at least be sympathetic enough not to go to a place where you fear for your life?).
I'm not saying anything about your testimony, but from your words alone it really seems like you life on a different plane of reality from everyone around you.
To hear you tell it, you can genuinely be killed or assaulted but everyone (including your friends??) is okay with that. And – most confusingly – you yourself is also okay with that?
I can't just wrap my head around that. If I feared for my life and health, I would just not go there, and fuck my friends for suggesting to risk it. Are you suicidal? Is that a missing piece of puzzle? Because even when I try to believe you, those pieces do not fit together.
half joking is still joking, and this is not a "quite bizarre" situation, in fact it's rather common for people to make threats. It's "quite bizarre" to me that you don't realize this.
> Not to mention the owner could just ban a person thatch bad for business. Or just install a camera, since police demands a proof.
I think I mentioned, the owners did in fact trespass this person. Aside from that, the cameras don't have audio.
I think I need to end this conversation, because it's going off track into my personal life more than I'd like, and I don't think your investigative (or joking) tone is appropriate. My example stands, from my perspective, as a valid reason to want this technology.
1. Women do it. 2. The government does it. 3. Private businesses do it.
What?!
I'm not sure this is helping your argument. Why are some entities given the benefit of the doubt, while most individuals are not?
How?
What do you think all these glasshole-women are going to do with bunch of (poor quality, grainy night) videos of some drunk bro on the street telling them "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"? Call FBI so they would give chase on a helicopter immediately?
Please stop using ad hominem attacks, this is not the appropriate forum for such remarks.
> "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"
I assume that would be considered sexual harassment in most jurisdictions, which local police should concern themselves with, especially if it's happening to minors.
I'm at a loss for why you brought up the FBI.
I feel quite strongly about people nonconsensually filming other people in public spaces. The proliferation of guides about disabling the indicators of active camera on smart glasses make me even more hesitant to normalize or condone such behavior.
> I assume that would be considered sexual harassment in most jurisdictions, which local police should concern themselves with, especially if it's happening to minors.
Stealing an Amazon package from your porch is also illegal in most jurisdictions yet police won't do anything with a video from your Ring doorbell showing some generic young-dude-in-a-baseball-cap-and-a-hoodie taking it away. They are only interested in such videos when investigating (what they consider) serious crimes.
> especially if it's happening to minors
You want minors to wear Meta glasses and film all the time? I shudder imagining growing up in such dystopia.
> I'm at a loss for why you brought up the FBI.
Sorry, that was a snark about how people who support installing smart doorbells and Flock cameras everywhere imagine police would react to a video showing someone stealing a bag from their car or a package from their porch.
Anyone have data on this? Feelin’ doubtful