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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Seeing the responses defending assaulting someone just for having a thing and not being able to tell the difference between being against your immediate response ovlf violence and defending something that is already fucking illegal makes me deeply distrust this entire website. You people are fucking insane and need to learn how to follow a thread of thought.
no, really. there’s shit tons of upskirt camera shit all over; when you can simply take off your glasses and hold them at your side, angled upward, it’s not a stretch.
Look, you unreconstructed whelp of a whore, the law only helps if you can get the police state to react in time. What, you gonna call 911 for the slave catchers to come every time you see a pair of glasses? because if they’ve deactivated the recording light (WHICH, YO, DUMBFUCK, THERE’S A VIDEO OF SOMEONE LOOKING FOR THIS SERVICE IN THIS POST’S COMMENTS) how would you know whether or not they’re upskirting your daughter on the fucking escalator?
You’re either so smoothbrained you lack the imagination required to make that tiny leap, or, you’re advocating on behalf of the fucking perverts, and should be cast into the bowels of hell with all the other kiddy diddler pervert shitbags.
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?
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
Buses, trains, and subways. No one expects the dude sitting across the car to be filming up their skirt. Well, they might, but it would be more obvious in the past.
yup. it’s disgusting we have to spell out ‘pervs are already doing it, you’re just improving their pervert equipment for higher production values you sick fucks’
I don’t think the shape of the camera matters half as much as:
overtly brandishing it at someone
trying to hide the fact that you are brandishing at someone (like by hiding it in your glasses)
Those actions are seen as aggressions by many, many people, as can be seen in the fallout from the original Google Glass, because there is an implicit desire to frame the target as guilty of something.
I’m sure this part is obvious now as it follows directly from above, but unprovoked aggressions violate the social contract, and brandishing cameras or surreptitiously recording people are widely regarded as aggressions.
“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
I think I understand where you’re coming from, and this is mostly humor and pedantry on my part, but given that the definition of “battery” is “unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact,” the quote from Gandhi isn’t “pushing” it, rather is in perfect alignment, as he stated “unlawful” use as his acceptable use of violence.
You think battery is acceptable but not illegal recording?
you don’t consider deliberately invading people’s privacy a form of assault?
that’s fucking cute.
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
you want to invade people’s privacy casually, and not have them react. so smacking it is, when I see glassholes like you, hands are gonna fly.
I’m not gonna wear them, but we’re talking specifically about public spaces. If someone is invading your privacy none of this applies
if you think creepshots are happening in private you don’t understand the argument at all.
they go to malls and stalk young women, pointing their cameras up skirts and down shirts and worse.
Ok, those are all crimes.
If you’re in public, you have no expectation of privacy.
It’d be one thing if you were at a hospital or at home. But walking down the street? No such privacy.
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.
https://www.freedomforum.org/recording-in-public/
https://www.stalkingawareness.org/map/
There aren’t really any blurred lines. Your gym is acceptable, unless they set a police not to record (many, if not most do)
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, it isn’t rocket science. The bathrooms are already protected as private spaces. The rest of the store is not.
gee so there’s a bit of nuance there huh?
Yes; and it’s more about who and how the person filming is behaving than where they are filming.
You are a creepy person, please don’t live near me.
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.
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?
Yup, it is. Glad we’ve settled that k thanks bye.
Good talk, very well thought out position.
100% accurate, you do also have stalking laws, but just the simple act of recording and not following is generally protected.
apparently it’s already a problem in places with every expectation of privacy…
https://www.404media.co/metas-ray-ban-glasses-users-film-and-harass-massage-parlor-workers/
seeing your responses makes me distrust furries
Seeing the responses defending assaulting someone just for having a thing and not being able to tell the difference between being against your immediate response ovlf violence and defending something that is already fucking illegal makes me deeply distrust this entire website. You people are fucking insane and need to learn how to follow a thread of thought.
sure thing creep
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.
Privacy in public spaces is not a thing and never was. For a good reason to.
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.
Those are not public spaces? There might be shades of nuances, but they are at least not found in your examples.
I can at least agree with the creepy assholes part, where it is justified.
the mall’s public. if some creep upskirts your wife/kids there, guess that’s just fine huh?
With these glasses?! That would be really funny in a “wtf are you doing” way.
Can you imagine it? “just a moment ma’am gonna take a quick picture “sticks his head up her skirt””
never used an escalator huh?
no, really. there’s shit tons of upskirt camera shit all over; when you can simply take off your glasses and hold them at your side, angled upward, it’s not a stretch.
Yes, that’s why there are harassment laws.
Schools and gyms are not public spaces you dildo
cool, so it’s a no moderation free fire zone.
Look, you unreconstructed whelp of a whore, the law only helps if you can get the police state to react in time. What, you gonna call 911 for the slave catchers to come every time you see a pair of glasses? because if they’ve deactivated the recording light (WHICH, YO, DUMBFUCK, THERE’S A VIDEO OF SOMEONE LOOKING FOR THIS SERVICE IN THIS POST’S COMMENTS) how would you know whether or not they’re upskirting your daughter on the fucking escalator?
You’re either so smoothbrained you lack the imagination required to make that tiny leap, or, you’re advocating on behalf of the fucking perverts, and should be cast into the bowels of hell with all the other kiddy diddler pervert shitbags.
GET FUCKED WITH A BLOWTORCH YOU SUBHUMAN SHITBAG
Ohhh wow, really triggered you with the world’s tamest insult
aw, did your feewings get hurt dildo bweath?
lol
Naw, why?
You got downvoted but you’re right.
I know
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?
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
Buses, trains, and subways. No one expects the dude sitting across the car to be filming up their skirt. Well, they might, but it would be more obvious in the past.
yup. it’s disgusting we have to spell out ‘pervs are already doing it, you’re just improving their pervert equipment for higher production values you sick fucks’
So much straw
The right to privacy is important
Yes, I agree. So is the right to not have your shit rocked out in a public street because someone doesn’t like the shape of your camera
If someone breaches any part of the social contract, it seems a little rich to for them to lean on its protections while they’re doing it.
What part of the social contract is being breached by filming in public with a glasses shaped camera vs a regular camera
I don’t think the shape of the camera matters half as much as:
Those actions are seen as aggressions by many, many people, as can be seen in the fallout from the original Google Glass, because there is an implicit desire to frame the target as guilty of something.
I’m sure this part is obvious now as it follows directly from above, but unprovoked aggressions violate the social contract, and brandishing cameras or surreptitiously recording people are widely regarded as aggressions.
Wait, who says battery is unacceptable across the board? Has anyone ever taken that position?
I mean, Mohandas Gandhi thought so.
Nah
“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.”
Seems like pushing the definition of battery, buy I guess it does call for battering someone under certain conditions. 😅
I think I understand where you’re coming from, and this is mostly humor and pedantry on my part, but given that the definition of “battery” is “unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact,” the quote from Gandhi isn’t “pushing” it, rather is in perfect alignment, as he stated “unlawful” use as his acceptable use of violence.
That’s true! If you punch me in the face in an illegal manner, I’m also battered!
fwiw I think you are completely right for asking this. Violence-loving freaks around here, sometimes.
Some people are in need of violence.
Ah yes, troglodyte diplomacy.
You can enjoy feeling superior all the way to the camps if you prefer
Nice threat.
You sound fragile.
Is that a bad thing?
If I catch a glasshole directing their gaze at me, I’ll beer batter them, them deep fry them, head, glasses and all.
Ok, that’s murder but you do you
Typical vegan reasoning! /s
I have to ask why you think anyone would take a Jeussaurus seriously on Lemmy of all fucking places.