475
Woman Hailed as Hero for Smashing Man's Meta Smart Glasses on Subway (futurism.com)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
333 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 6 points 11 months ago (12 children)

Recording in public isn't the issue, there is no expectation of privacy.

Starting shit for reactions and sneaking pics like upskirts or of kids is where people are going to get upset and fuck you up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (8 children)

    Actually there is an expectation of privacy.

    The argument that "if you're in public and are filmed" it's not an invasion of your privacy specifically relates to things that are considered "legitimate public insterest",. If you're tangentially caught on a news-report about a house fire, or an event, or something like that, for example. Of if you're in the background on a cop's dash cam during a traffic stop, etc...

    Beyond that, no one can use your image without your consent. There's a reason that members of the press need credentials and will usually walk around in a jacket that says PRESS on it; so that people know that they are in a place where they are likely to be recorded and can move away from it.

    There's a reason that, if a movie is shooting a scene and they catch a few background people, they have to send a poor production assistant running around with release forms so that those people can give their permission...other wise the film can't use the footage.

    Some incel recording a woman for his own personal spank-bank doesn't fall into either of those categories. And anyone who is trying to claim that they're all the same thing is a fucking creep.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    That's for commercial use. There are thousands upon thousands of cameras all over, there is nothing illegal recording you in public. Look at Teslas, cameras on all sides, I've got a dash cam front and rear. Nothing you can do about it in america, it's protected by the first amendment in public.

    On private property it's a different story, but you cant trespass someone's eyes, if they can see it, they can record it. Think of how many ring door cameras capture people daily.

    Lmao. Press credentials are for specific events, almost always on private property. It's just a badge to people know what/who you are. In public any joe can record.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (4 children)

    NO, you can only film if you've printed out or written on a piece of paper "PRESS". This makes you super duper legit and only then are you granted 1st amendment rights. If you don't have a printer or at least paper and pen, then you're shit out of luck!

    This is because people need to be able to hide from cameras - this is also why it is ILLEGAL to film someone if they don't know about it. Why do you think there's bouncers at every business who make you sign a release form to enter any building? Why do you think people are forced to blur out bystanders when they take pictures at Disney? Why do you think that its ILLEGAL to film celebrities on the street? Check. Mate.

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

    Lmao

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

    Honestly the level of confidence and intelligent seeming approach that other guy had, while talking completely out of his ass, is unsettling.

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

    It's a common misconception until you've dealt with it or sat down and thought about it for a few moments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Sure, im aware of how the general public assumes it works (i watch alot of 1a audit videos). But its one thing to be misinformed, its another to speak with authority at length, purely based on your gut feeling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    because of the situation he is in, the barrier is even lower than the situations you cited.

    All you has to say is been assaulted or threatened often on the subway and no longer feels safe.

    A conservative from outta state could perceive the women living there as more of a threat than their cuckoid menfolk (no Canada jab intended).

    The footage we are seeing make complete sense. Instead arguing we should be praising his assessment and preparation for the situation he's finding himself in.

    This State is not inhabited by the righteous. The morals, ethics, laws, and consequences do not match the ideal you are measuring this guy against.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Recording in public isn't the issue, there is no expectation of privacy.

    Is anyone claiming that recording in public for any reason is wrong? Otherwise, I don't get why this needs to be asserted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    We have no reason to reach towards this conclusion or bring this up unless it's to project this hypothetical situation for purpose of associating the subject as possibly being such a person.

    Extreme accusations require extreme evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent