A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 11 months ago (56 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    When you wake up and walk outside to the corner store, you've had like 40 devices filming you.... lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (31 children)

    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.

    Control yourself, tough guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    You can't legally commit violence based on a hypothetical scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    You can't legally overthrow an oppressive regime, either. Legality is not the same as morality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I think the assumption people are making here with my original comment is that I wouldn’t first tell them to stop and delete whatever they had recorded. Which is my fault because I can see that from the way I said it. But if that doesn’t work? Well, they don’t just get to keep doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    I'm not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.

    The point I'm making is that people shouldn't start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.

    You can't put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I didn’t suggest assaulting anyone, you’re trying to paint this in a more violent light than it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Forcefully grabbing someone's property to break it is assault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Then why is Donald Trump not in jail?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    TLDR: The law and it's philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn't run on what you think, and society is better for it.

    Once again, the law says you aren't protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There's a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can't grab other people's stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.

    If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she'd be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of "reasonable application of force" within what's commonly known as a "force escalation continuum".

    So, no "creeps" shouldn't be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it's better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    This is what a lawyer who specializes in getting off drunk drivers and playground perverts would argue.

    This is shitty behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)