Dilara was on her lunch break in the London store where she works when a tall man walked up to her and said: “I swear red hair means you’ve just been heartbroken.”
The man continued the conversation as they both got in a lift, and he asked Dilara for her phone number.
What Dilara did not realise was that the man was secretly filming her on his smart glasses - which look like normal eyewear but have a tiny camera which can record video.
The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3m views. “I just wanted to cry,” Dilara, 21, told the BBC.
The man who filmed her, it turned out, had posted dozens of secretly filmed videos to TikTok, giving men tips on how to approach women.
Dilara also found out that her phone number was visible in the video. She then faced a wave of messages and calls.
Fuck TikTok. And fuck smart glasses. What the fuck is wrong with people who would even design glasses with a hidden camera?
Fuck the assholes who would do this.
Absolutely. I cannot believe such a creepy product would be made to begin with though.
Glassholes are making a comeback, fuck.
They’re being built into earbuds and headphones now too. Let me see if I can find links to the products again, saw them while browsing articles about CES
Edit: https://www.soundguys.com/razer-project-motoko-ai-headphones-150707/
The headphones were real, the earbuds were just a concept image though
Jesus. Black Mirror is all coming true.
Smart glasses and hidden cameras are two different products.
That being said, anyone can easily film you in public because anyone just assumes you’re just holding your phone up for something else.
I consider it hidden if it’s designed to look like a normal pair of glasses which the post states is the case.
Yes, it is a hidden camera in a pair of glasses, not smart glasses.
They were pointing out the difference. It would be like someone confusing a camera for a smartphone.
It would be like someone confusing a camera for a smartphone.
Not really. For the purposes of this conversation that doesn’t matter at all. The only things that matter here would be can the glasses film and can anyone tell that at a glance? I don’t care if the glasses can also do Google searches or some shit. That doesn’t necessarily violate my privacy. What violates my privacy is someone filming, without me even having a clue they might be.
Not really. For the purposes of this conversation that doesn’t matter at all.
It does, because the statement that people are taking issue with:
Smart glasses and hidden cameras are two different products.
Is objectively correct and that was the only point they were trying to make. They were not claiming that it makes filming okay or that hidden cameras are not a problem.
The people are not responding to the actual words written by the person, they’re replying the the subtext that they feel was implied.
Me: makes point
Online weirdo: akshually, you’re wrong. Unrelated irrelevant details matter
You: yeah, ya idiot! It totally matters cuz we said so!
Edit: checks out completely that your only post on this platform is to claim you weren’t being transphobic and making a big stink about it
If you get so triggered when people point out that you’re wrong, maybe you should spend more time reading a book and less time trying to be insulting.
Your comments read like you’re an angsty teenager who is incapable of having a conversation like an adult.
anyone can easily film you in public because anyone just assumes you’re just holding your phone up for something else.
Nope. If someone is doing that, I can easily notice it and know it’s a possibility and move/turn away. Just because I can judge that as probably not happening doesn’t mean a phone being held is equivalent to a human literally just wearing glasses with their head turned my way.
Are you really advocating for the position that I should give up the fight and just accept being filmed at all times in public?
Nope. If someone is doing that, I can easily notice it and know it’s a possibility and move/turn away. Just because I can judge that as probably not happening doesn’t mean a phone being held is equivalent to a human literally just wearing glasses with their head turned my way.
Agreed.
Are you really advocating for the position that I should give up the fight and just accept being filmed at all times in public?
Assuming you’re in the US, you have no expectations of privacy in public, and it’s perfectly legal to film you in public. You do have to accept that, yes.
I’m sure a case can be made for someone approaching you and getting you to interact while filming secretly, and I hope she can sue him for damages. But simply being recorded in public is not something you can do anything about.
I am well aware of that supreme court decision. If hidden cameras mounted in glasses were a thing then, I highly doubt that ruling could’ve ever happened. Thanks for telling me what I have to accept though. Totally helpful and kind thing to do. Thanks also for the weird condescension. Exactly what the world needs right now.
I wasn’t condescending at all, and it didn’t seem you were aware, I was trying to be informative. What a weird response, honestly.
FYI since you pretend not to know: “you do have to accept [thing that didn’t exist at the time a ruling was made]” would read as being a smartass to most people
Gotcha, I didn’t realize it came off like that.
Again, was trying to be informative, because not accepting it implied not being aware, and we all have to accept it… or revolt and rewrite the rules…
This dude deserves nothing less that an ass beating then criminal charges.
Criminal justice system: Best I can do is a 300$ fine and 60 hours community service.
That woman who smashed an idiot’s glasses in New York a few weeks/months? ago was ahead of the curve.
It’s all good until she breaks someone’s plain old real prescription glasses thinking they are smart glasses.
Is she going to smash all of the other cameras recording her in public?
Or it’s okay when governments/businesses do it?
I didn’t say it was, but the governments/businesses aren’t posting people’s contact information to TikTok.
If someone wants to start smashing flock cameras, I’m certainly not going to stop then
I’m fully ok with punching these people in the face and break their glasses. If their nose gets broken in the process, that’s just something we have to live with.
This glasses should not be allowed. We need clear indicators of recording not that tiny light meta added.
This is so fucked up, and the guy who did this needs to be doxxed and have his whole life made hell, but…
Back when the ubiquitousness of smartphone cameras was still fairly new, and the prospect of being secretly recorded and posted online at any given moment was still unthinkable yet real, I tried raising the concern whenever/however I could.
Like, I would tell people “this is fucked up, and we shouldn’t normalize this.” And you know what they told me, nearly without fail? They called me a creep and said if I wasn’t doing anything I wouldn’t want people to see online, then I wouldn’t be worried about being secretly recorded.
It was like this pseudo “women’s empowerment” sentiment where they thought this gives them the ability to ruin men’s lives (often over short clips out of context that only look bad based on how it’s spinned in the caption), thus “protecting” women, and they didn’t think it would ever turn back on them and blow up in their faces.
Unbeknownst to them, one of my main concerns was the danger this poses for women. But of course, no one would believe that, because I was a man, so of course the only reasonable assumption was that I was a misogynist and only concerned with privacy so I could get away with predatory behavior. So of course, if I raise a fuss about this then I must be a creep. Of course.
Well, look what’s come home to roost. Amazing. Who could have predicted this?
The ‘if you not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide’ argument is a logical fallicy.
Any time someone throws that at you ask them why they have curtains/blinds on their windows, doors on their rooms and fences around their house.The problem isn’t the recording, this was in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy, the problem is covert recording.
Yes, and covert recording by definition is done without the knowledge or consent of the one being recorded. It should be illegal everywhere, but some states have single-party consent laws which allow it.
(imagine applying such a rule to sexual activity, it would be absurd; yet somehow it’s totally legal to broadcast a person’s name, face, and location to the world without them even knowing what’s happening?)
I think knowledge and consent need to be distinguished, there are lots of people who are filmed in public that wouldn’t consent to it, bike thieves for instance. I don’t think that banning filming or photography in public is a sensible idea.
Do you also support CCTV and flock cameras, then? Because that’s the same argument used to justify those.
“Be afraid of crime. Let the authorities spy on you. Now you’re protected.” What about when the authorities abuse their power? Who’s going to protect you then?
(For the record, I believe all public officials should be required to give up some of their expectations of privacy as a condition of working as a public official. The public requires a level of trust in them that it doesn’t require of ordinary private citizens. They should have to submit financial statements, and they should also have to declare unconditional consent to be recorded by anyone in any given moment, except in confidential spaces like homes, offices, briefing rooms, etc.)
But the thing is, in order to catch a bike thief on video, you have to already be recording either them or the bike, and since it’s nearly impossible to predict, the chances of catching it on camera are slim. Unless you use ubiquitous area cameras pointed at all the bike racks. And even then, if they’re casual enough or hide their face then no one would know they’re stealing it except the owner of the bike, or no one would be able to identify the person who stole it.
I don’t think giving the authorities (or the hive mind, for that matter) unrestricted access to constant recordings of every public space is a sensible idea, because it’s too prone to abuse. That’s how you get a surveillance state, like the USSR or america right now. They misinterpret a movement of your hand and label you “antifa terrorist” and you get flagged for closer scrutiny, where everything they observe you doing is then run through interpretive filters that are biased towards describing you as a terrorist.
Whoever is analyzing those recordings is going to be paranoid to some degree, or their algorithms are going to hallucinate patterns that aren’t there, or someone is going to get vindictive and use the power to abuse anyone they don’t like. Do you want every twitch, gesture, or facial expression being labelled and categorized by AI and then saved into a profile of you that some unknown spook can access at any time? Then when you notice plain clothes agents scoping you out, they get a screenshot of your face looking nervous and label it as “definitely guilty,” and they close in on you tighter and tighter until either your anxiety takes over and you’re labeled as paranoid/psychotic, or they push you into a panic attack and label your conduct “disorderly” and use it as a pretext to make an arrest?
The whole thing is too prone to abuse, and it’s not even an effective deterrent for crime prevention. I can’t agree with it. Better to build community trust and economic empowerment to address crime from the root causes; that’s the only method that’s been shown to significantly reduce crime.
Yes CCTV in public is not inherently evil, where it is obvious and not hidden. What I was talking about though was the right of the public to photograph and film in public spaces. Without that right there would be no street photography, no citizen journalism exposing police abuse of power, no youtubers making videos about strange and interesting things in public, no footage of people committing crimes in public, no videos of cats in Istanbul. This (and more) is what would be lost if we ban cameras from public places.
When authorities abuse their power the only protection is evidence and public backlash. The best evidence is video evidence. That’s why the police wearing body worn cameras is a good thing, it means the public can hold them to account if they misbehave.
There is a big difference between passive CCTV (recordings can be accessed if needed) and active CCTV (continually scanned by AI combined with facial recognition). I do think that unless there is serious pushback against facial recognition it will be increasingly implemented, despite the risks, however your worries about the police scanning your facial expression and sending plain clothes officers after you are completely unfounded and a little bit unhinged.
https://sopuli.xyz/post/40232627
One thing I’ve learned is that if it can be abused, the authorities will abuse it unless laws are passed to stop them. And even then they’ll try to change the laws or abuse it secretly.
Exactly. But fascists want privacy for themselves, and if they don’t get it then they’ll call people commies. But if anyone else wants privacy, then fascists say they’re acting suspicious and must be guilty of something.
Make it make sense. (Yes I know, conservatives are self-contradictory and have no ideological consistency; rules for me not for thee, we get it…)
They post dudes from the gym just trying to work out to shame them for attention and it’s all fine because ‘safety’ but if they get posted or recorded it’s suddenly an issue. Women’s empowerment has always been hypocritical and self-serving.
The average consumer is stupid as a bag of rocks and care more about doing what they feel like doing than doing what is wise. They’ve helped build a consumer product surveillance state and will never admit any fault for it, even when ICE now uses it to gestapo them. They shamed anyone that dared suggest maybe don’t invite tracking and surveillance technology into every inch of OUR lives, or posting everyone’s shit on Facebook all day. Fuck these ppl for helping usher in the techbro fascist dictatorship we’re now suffering.
And then they hit you with the “If you just don’t bother women, then you won’t be accused of harassment!” and the “Believe victims! No one actually weaponizes false accusations in retaliation for petty grievances. Women never lie!”
Emmett Till begs to differ…
Until there’s a law against it, a law that requires an obvious flashing red light, this will continue to happen. I know the Meta glasses have a light that supposedly can’t be covered without covering the camera. But, that’s there only because Meta chose to put it there to head off complaints, à la Google Glass.
But, I think those lights will go away, and I believe that is what the billionaires who make the choices want to happen. Because, being in public, not knowing whether you’re being filmed is a great way to keep the masses in line. Fear and division in the populous is how those in power stay in power, when the people want them out.
I don’t have a link right offhand, but the indicator led is defeatable. There’s people on ebay offering the modded glasses for only (iirc) like $100 more than msrp.
How exactly should a law like this work? Should it be obvious to anyone being recorded in public that they are being recorded and who is doing it?
That wouldn’t be very beneficial to the surveillance state.
I think we’re reaching the point where “anti smart glasses” glasses should become a thing, that is, a type of electronic glasses that can detect whether the person you’re talking to is wearing smart glasses and warn you about it.
I want a device that makes it explode on their face and melt their eyes.
Infrared leds should be able to overexpose the cameras unless they have IR filters in them.
There are already phone apps that try to do this with WiFi/Bluetooth scanning, object detection, red “filters” and so on.
Theoretically, it’d be really cheap to make a tiny “detector” camera; maybe a Bluetooth earbud looking thing on one ear? Every existing tiny camera can pick up infrared if you just take off and change the filter, and your phone can run tiny object detection algos with almost no power.
The problem is mass adoption.
She didn’t deserve that, and these glasses are so problematic. Too problematic for society, just like so much of the AI products being introduced.
Yes some of the glasses are supposed to have lights, but if you search online you can find plenty of ways to cover or conceal them.
Also myself and my significant other wear prescription glasses that have a similar shape to these. At what point do we have to start being anxious about people starting to slug anyone wearing glasses out of paranoid concerns for their privacy?
I don’t want to deal with any of this. We live in such a dystopian world.
Do these stupid companies actually think that any of these products aren’t just going to be used by perverts?
There are legitimate professional use cases: for example, imagine a consulting doctor looking in on what another surgeon is doing and offering opinions as the operation goes on. Or same thing with engineers.
But I can’t think of a single consumer use case that isn’t designed for perverts.
Straight up, that guy needs his knees bent the wrong way - no way in Hell is he too stupid to not understand that he was putting her in genuine danger by splashing her digits and face online.
I can still remember years ago when the prototype ‘smart glasses’ (see image below), or whatever they were called, were new. Some fucker tried to pull off a demo in a small community pub, but someone noticed his gigantic weird frames and caught on. MFer got bum-rushed out the front door under threat of a serious ass-kicking, and anyone who’s seen a crowd of pub regulars work someone over knows what I mean. They should be too scared to pull this shit on women.
Using those kinds of glasses would be a great way to expose a narcissist in real time; I’ve personally done certain things in my own home as a child to prove someone else’s guilt, and this kind of stuff would’ve made it simpler. Ethical use solves problems instead of creating new ones.
