I got a tour of a military base with a guy who was wearing smart glasses and I couldn’t fucking believe that someone didn’t grab them off his face and break them in half. I was being VERY careful to ask if I was permitted to take pictures in some places (in at least one of which where the answer was No), and this dude was cruising around like Boris Badunov trying to gather secrets.
Might be a good time to tell someone.
I DID tell the guide what he was wearing because I didn’t want us to end up in a military detention cell but the guide was like “Eh, it’s fine,” so I guess it was, but boy it didn’t feel like it should have been!
it was fine because guide probably didnt understand the concept of glasses being able to record stuff, otherwise it would have been fine for you to take pictures too.
Maybe he was taken aside and questioned afterwards, hopefully. Or, rather, they don’t show critical infrastructure to strangers at all.
Well in that case the guide should be on the line for the fuckup
BBC News - Woman covertly filmed for ‘humiliating’ social media content - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cdxpqg22q34o
Video version of the original story. He comes across as a creep.
another reason to continue masking in public tbh
probably going to start purposefully looking away from people if they try to talk to me with those on and if they push it I’ll ask them to take them off and if they refuse to disengage completely
I know none of this is foolproof but it at least is social pressure and signalling to anyone around that I’m trying to avoid them if it escalates
It might work if you’re a man but if you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter what you do, if a man wants to film you, follow you, harass you, he will do it. And now he’s filming it too and posting it online for profit.
yeah it probably won’t stop them I am a woman it’s mostly to publicly shame them bc maybe they’ll think twice if they’re not willing to escalate in public
Yeah it’s probably no harm at least, worth a try.
White western women need to adopt the niqab. It’s the only way.
Did you see what she was wearing? You could see her eyebrows, she was practically asking for it
By all means, ladies, please, keep boycotting sex. These assholes only have an inch, don’t give them another.
If they go black mirror, black mirror them back: block them. Physically they talk, you don’t respond. They don’t exist anymore.
precisely why I won’t talk to someone wearing a camera, or pointing a camera at me… I’ll stand there in silence the entire time, or just walk away.
put the camera down, talk or buh bye…
The point is that she didn’t even know she was being recorded. That’s why this story is all about the smart glasses being used to covertly record people.
“But I want to document what you say!”
🤐🖕
Only time it’s acceptable is in front of a cop since they can’t be trusted to operate the cameras they should be wearing themselves
Any public servants, really. Private citizens in public should have a bit of protection from potential harassment.
Literally black mirror
What were the victims doing that would incriminate them? I am not saying that it isn’t enough to just not want to be filmed, but most people don’t seem to care about privacy so I am wondering if they had some leverage.
probably being a woman while naked
They don’t have to be doing something.
You just capture their likeness and Ai prompts do the rest.
Ooof.
Btw I have video of you engaged in passionate sexual congress with a platypus. Send me bitcoin or your mother sees it!
How did you know about my platypus kink? Please send it to me.
what a great take, to start with victim blaming
wow.
Yup, that’s where I started. You can tell because apparently you can read minds and stood right next to me as well when I started to think about this.
because apparently you can read minds
you toolbag, I can read what you wrote.
What were the victims doing
You don’t know where I started. You know that I asked that question. It is not where I started. I thought about the implications and why technology is not the issue but the application of said technology. Also that acceptance or tolerance by a society comes into play.
I couldn’t figure out what their angle was for blackmail was because you need one to be successful. So I asked that question.
It is not victim blaming, it’s asking about circumstances I am not familiar with since I couldn’t be there and see for myself. I can’t read minds you know.
And by the way the saying that only a person willing to do something wrong can be conned could be a nice angle for blackmail. If you catch a person doing something wrong makes them vulnerable. I KNOW that somebody would use footage of that to blackmail somebody.
AI didn’t come into play here for me until somebody pointed it out.
So take your tool out of my bag and relax.
So take your tool out of my bag and relax.
fucking gross bastard, get your jollies somewhere else
you’re a defender of the creeps, and that was the creepiest bit so far. you know people are evil but want them to have better equip to creep with, it’s insufferable
Sure thing. You absolutely understood my point.
Blocked
https://youtube.com/shorts/jm2c--qzSbk
If you buy these things you’re a fucking creep
“It’s for my dad” 🤣
This is not about smart glasses.
holding a glass slab in front of someone’s face is a lot more likely to be clocked.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. They are cheaper and even less obvious than thick black ray bans.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. T
It is entirely about smart glasses. button cameras have been around for AGES. But they have shit lenses and crap sensors; these fucking chodes want to up the production value on the nonconsensual porn they already shoot with their phones - on the stairs up skirts, down the blouses of women, etc.,
they want a head cam with better resolution and head tracking.
keep advocating for the perverts
But they have shit lenses and crap sensors
Gopros are 4k and can be much less visible than chunky glasses.
keep advocating for the perverts
Strange logic. You are hyperfocused on a particular product. I’m highlighting the more serious concerns. Neither of us are “advocating for the perverts”.
wow so just lie huh? just straight up fuckin lie?
you fucking liar. a go pro is a fucking cube with lens AND A SCREEN exposed. A BIT MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN YOU MADE IT OUT, WAY MORE OBVIOUS THAN A PAIR OF RAY BANS.
or are you so mentally deficient you can’t tell the difference between CAMERA CUBE and sunglasses?
what go pros are you buying? you fucking liar garbage
god I hope nobody paid to educate you, it was an absolute fucking waste of resources
Wow. So much anger. Why?
Yes a gopro has a screen but you only have to poke the lens through a hole in a bag or piece of clothing to have something superior and better camouflaged than chunky glasses.
Again I’m not arguing against your dislike of smart glasses, but you are missing the forest for the trees.
Wow. So much anger. Why?
dealing with morons like you who misrepresent the truth for lulz I guess. so they can run cover for pedos recording women and children. it’s sick, you’re sick, and you have the gall to wonder about people being angry?
you lie about everything and you wonder why people would be upset?
you fucking troll, get fucked. like, go to a nuclear power plant, get fuel rod, and shove it up your ass.
You have obviously grossly misunderstood my comments.
I suggest you make yourself a nice herbal tea, sit down and reread our interactions.
Gopros are 4k and can be much less visible than chunky glasses.
it’s obviously bullshit, but you still stick to it. jfc
If I ever see someone wearing smart glasses near me I will slap them off their face.
No you won’t.
Doubt
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
talking specifically about public spaces.
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.
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.
You are a creepy person, please don’t live near me.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Yes, that’s why there are harassment laws.
Schools and gyms are not public spaces you dildo
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
You got downvoted but you’re right.
I know
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””
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’
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:
- 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.
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!
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.
Are you sure you’d be able to tell? These people are actively looking for ways to disguise these things so that you can’t tell that they’re wearing them.
what about people with phones ? how does recording a video, or taking a photo in a public place justify violence?
The problem is it’s typically more obvious when someone is taking a phone video
Yeah, that phone in my shirt pocket set to record really gets noticed… by exactly nobody.
Yeah, I do this all the time actually. Grocery shopping and the wife wants to FaceTime? Shirt pocket. No one even gives it a first glance, never mind second.
Type shirt button camera into Google. Those are even less obvious than chunky glasses.
The problem is the blackmail perverts not the tech. (Athough metas glasses are a privacy nightmare by design).
If you use a wide-angle-lense on a samsung, you can be angled 45 degrees away from your target.
All recording devices need to make it abundantly obvious you’re recording and have interlocks so that if those ways are defeated, it’s noticed and they refuse to record.
You’ll assault them?
Like all those maga people who hate pedophiles (apparently)
If you act like a twat, you can be called out online. But only affects you if you online.
Im not online anywhere, except here. And this place sucks and has 4 users, and if it gets better/bigger im leaving.
I swear if someone approaches me with these glasses they’re going to find out just how fragile those frames are.
Complain to management about secret surveillance . That’s how original Google glasses were defeated
No. They weren’t defeated. They looked dumb and no one wanted to wear them all the time. They simply evolved into the type of glasses, which are now all over.
Defeated? Aren’t we establishing right fucking here and now that they weren’t defeated, just streamlined? Am I hallucinating this thread and comment I’m typing?
Ohh, right but Google and Meta are different. How did I not give one single fuck about that detail??? Man I’m stupid. Fucking IDIOT I am. Definitely not you. Me, I’m the stupid fucking moron. Not you.
Hidden cameras and recordings have been things for like 100 years.
Edit and privacy law’s reflect that.
Also everyone is literally constantly pointing a camera at you in public with their phones. Public places don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Yeah but sunglasses make it very visible so people can’t pretend it doesn’t exist and have to confront how it feels to experience living in a surveillance state. They don’t like that.
I mean… if they’re only now starting to notice and get uncomfortable, then, well. I guess just, good on them, for finally noticing?
Not really. The whole point is that they only feel uncomfortable when they can see it, so they fight to ensure it can’t be seen, not for it to not exist. The public are a disappointment clump of morons who constantly fuck over our collective futures.
Yes, that’s the point I was making. Trying to make, with sarcasm. Failed, I guess. It’s stupid as shit to panic now and getting rid of some glasses won’t get rid of perverts recording in secret. Literally been an issue since the invention of photography.
Also, phones are cameras. And very visible.
So like, dumb people can think what they think, I just don’t have the energy to fight it anymore. Well not as much as I used to anyway
this seems to be an actual problem.
https://www.404media.co/metas-ray-ban-glasses-users-film-and-harass-massage-parlor-workers/
surprised so many dismiss it so casually
Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It’s just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that’s all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)
It’s like saying I’m dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that’s a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.
But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they’re more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.
I’m not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I’m pointing out that the problems isn’t new
In the 90’s and 00’s there was a “video voyeurism” panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.
Because I think you’d agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it’s from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren’t quick to do anything:
##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism
On September 21, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (S. 1301) aimed at preventing video voyeurism. The Senate approved the measure on September 25, 2003 (see The Source, 9/26/03). It will now go to the White House for President Bush’s signature.
Sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would make it a federal crime to knowingly “capture,” by videotaping, filming, or photographing, an “improper image” of another individual, defined in the bill as “an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The term “broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image “with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.” In order to convict an offender of video voyeurism, prosecutors would have to show that the individual knowingly intended to capture the image.
Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI) said that video voyeurism “is a serious crime, the extent of which has been greatly exacerbated by the Internet. Because of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. As a result, individuals in the victims’ rights community have labeled video voyeurism ‘the new frontier of stalking.’”
Stressing the need for a federal law criminalizing video voyeurism, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) explained that many states “have passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal lands such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well-accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology.”
https://www.wcpinst.org/source/congress-criminalizes-video-voyeurism/?hl=en-GB
It’s still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don’t really work that well and b) because it’s just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.
pointing to the problems of the 90’s and 00’s is hilariously bad comparison. those devices were 320x200 or 640x480, not HD, 4k etc.
it’s facile and stupid to compare these as if they’re the same thing; and furthermore, the form factor and ability to disable to recording light - no, it’s not nearly the same fucking thing.
creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.
Fucking lol.
What you’re doing is “moving the goalposts”.
I’ll answer anyway; do you know what the resolution of an analog camera is, dipshit?
(edit, this is literally 90 years old)
creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.
How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.
To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.
you dumbfuck, I’ve been photographing on film since the 80s. I spent ages doing just black and white hand developed large format photography. to answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
perfectly exposed? where the developer didn’t need to push or pull? the resolution is incredible. off a spy camera like a minox? well that depends on if it’s a 8x11mm or 35mm, but the aperture is so tiny, restricting the amount of light on the negative that resolution isn’t really a concern.
NONE OF THIS CHANGES YOUR STUPIDITY, YOU GODDAMN TOOLBAG. keep working for the creeps
answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
No shit, Sherlock.
Which is why your complaint that bringing up all the hundreds of fucking privacy laws which explicitly define privacy is “childish and facile” is goddamn hilarious.
You’re just a sore kid crying because he was wrong.
You’re an illiterate moron.
Try to recap your point. Wait, you have none, because you too have admitted that metas glasses aren’t in any way a new problem.
That’s like being so shittingly brainless that you’d argue that the drug trade was invented with tor-networks.
You have no point you have no argument you’re just moving the goalposts because your tiny little ego can’t take having been wrong. I sincerely do hope you’re a kid, because having a psyche like that as an adult would be pitiful.
Public places don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Not where you live at least.
Tell me a place which does.
Places which you aren’t allowed to film on the street?
Because no matter how furiously you google, a majority of the world allows it. Who doesn’t are like Chinese and Russians, but even they only limit it in certain cities / landmarks. So in a country like North Korea, you’d have “reasonable expectation of privacy”, except ofc you don’t it’s a totalitarian dictatorship.
Every single photographer knows this. Or should know it at least, basic laws covering privacy.
In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things put into a public space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy
“But that’s just America”
Yeah I’m not American. I most intimately know Finnish laws and while there’s a million Karens who get upset if they think they’re being filmed (especially cops, I went to the supreme court and won when they prevented me from filming in my phone).
And there’s nothing in the GDPR that would ban filming in public or say that in public one could reasonably expect privacy. The exception is you can’t use that material for commercial purposes without a permit. But it’s completely fine for personal use.
Switzerland; you have to ask persons on the image for permission. Some exceptions (like events, lamdscape) apply. And shops, companies, have to follow rules, how much public space is permitted and how long they can keep them. Germany has similiar rules. Austria and France i’m not sure.
Lol, no. You’re just wrong. You think its not allowed to film on the street when you’re in Switzerland? That you’d need to stop every single person and ask for their permission? If you genuinely believe that, then you’re not the sharpest pen in the case.
Germany the same.
You need to ask for permission if you go up to someone’s face and make them the primary target of your filming. But for just general filming for personal use, nope, you’re wrong, it’s allowed in public.
Why don’t you google shit before being so incorrect publicly?
Or perhaps did some hardcore googling where you don’t actually look for info on the subject, but instead decide how a thing is and then google to find any random post on some forum agreeing with it, without sources.
It’s the same law I mentioned earlier. These have been accounted for decades before you were even born, and it honestly would’ve been really easy for you to figure that out instead of just trying to prove your delusions correct. Perhaps you asked an LLM with a prompt that already had it as an assumption and then it hallucinated a bunch of shit. But yeah, you’re wrong.
What did she do that was humiliating? I get not wanting random videos of oneself online, but why is she so anxious about the video? She was just shopping, what so embarrassing about that?
He was trying to pick her up, she didn’t want him to, he kept trying, then he posted it online and she was embarrassed and asked him to remove it. He said he will if she pays. She feels humiliated and she was used.
I read the article and it didn’t mention any of that. It didn’t mention what happened on the video at all. Really shitty thing that he did.
There was another link that showed a snippet of an interview.
Could even be nothing. I’m imagining part of it being social engineering, gaslight people into thinking the video you have of them is embarrasing
Or baiting people into reactive abuse, and editing the video to make it look like they were the aggressor.
When capitalism is failing and hope gets diminished, extortion is just another revenue stream. Money, money, money, Mahn-eh!
Need some of those things movie stars use against the paparazzi.
fists?
I suspect they meant the patterned clothing that confuses cameras.
I am against constant surveillance and these are huge privacy violations, especially because it seems very unlikely they’re storing the media exclusively locally. Also, the fact that they can be more discreet than many other options for recording is concerning.
The first two ads I ever saw for these were of a guy using them to quietly cheat at, IIRC, a board game; and of someone having a conversation, only to realize the other party was recording it. They looked like legit ads, but I’m not sure how anyone could think that was positive press.
All that said, the number of people advocating violence in response is alarming. Depending on the environment, I feel the appropriate response is to ask the wearer to remove them and then, if they refuse, remove either yourself or them from the situation. Obviously no one solution fits all situations and there may be situations where violence is warranted, but it is surprising to me that it seems to be the default.
edit: Recently started using a new keyboard on my phone, had to correct a word it chose for me. The meaning I was trying to convey was not altered.
So WW2 dazzle camouflage? As a bonus, you are also protected from packs of roving U-boats!
That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.
FWIW, my state is basically the opposite of land locked. I’m not comfortable with telling lies. I don’t mind saying things that are inaccurate to make someone laugh but I don’t want to make anyone believe those claims.
That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.
The landshark U-boats are a real menace. They can climb out of a farmer’s pond like walking catfish and the next thing you know, they’re torpedoing a grain silo in Peoria.
One of my groomsmen always defended his fear of water by saying “there could be kaiju army crawling under there, you don’t know!”
especially because it seems very unlikely they’re storing the media exclusively locally.
Oh like hell they are.
Remember in “The Dark Knight”, when Fox and Wayne Enterprises made the high-frequency generator that turned everybody’s cellphones into an echolocation device?
I kinda feel like Zuck has a room in one of his houses with a big wall of monitors just like Fox had. And he just sits there, channel-surfing, with a 50gal drum of lotion by his side.
Except Zuck’s don’t self-destruct. Sadly. A small bomb wrapped around the brains of anybody who bought one of these things would come in quite handy.
I agree. Creating an environment where people have no recourse but to logically need to respond with violence is quite alarming. If only there were people citizens could call and implicitly trust to serve and protect them without being like, kidnapped or just murdered for their skin color. Society should really try its best to eliminate those elements. Oh well, until then at least we have fists and crowbars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It seems like you might not actually be agreeing with me.
But I said I agree and didn’t even use a /s tag. I always use those for my sarcastic comments, which are rare and used sparingly.
While your argument is compelling, I still have my doubts about your sincerity.
