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

top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 199 points 11 months ago* (30 children)

“You’re going to be famous on the Internet!”

Lol, he’s right but not the way he thinks.

In the meantime, eth8n claims to have “filed a claim with the police and it’s a misdemeanor charge.”

“What she did was assault, can get arrested for it if I see her again and felt like it,” he wrote.

This guy sounds like such an annoying little bitch.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 11 months ago (28 children)

    Who else would wear this shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    People with the need for A/R overlays on their vision? I can see their use in very specific situations but IDK why you would constantly wear them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    This tech for blind people could become fantastic, ai in general should be great for people with disabilities.

    Same for a lot of jobs. I’m colourblind and can’t be an electrician, but if I had AR labelling the wires in basically real time it would be a different story.

    Jackasses making weird noises on the subway and filming people ruin the potential of this stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    This is not an accessibility tool, and you'd need to fuvk with it a lot to make it one, and it still sends everything to Facebook-respectfully: fuck you and fuck your disability if your accommodation is to be a corporate ur-snitch; I'll kick your metaphorical crutches out from under you and laugh about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (11 children)

    Agree w the fuck you part but not with the anti-disability imagery. Anyone can become disabled, and ppl with actual disabilities have it hard enough without that.

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

    If your accommodation is to sell my soul to a megacorp that works with the death squads that are eventually going to come for me, I'm gonna kick your crutches out from under you and laugh at how you can't get up in ways I wouldn't dream of if someone who hadn't chosen to violate my privacy and take what will in the near future be a risk with getting me put in a concentration camp, that person being hurt and suffering is funny in kind of a poetic way, where the same action on someone who hadn't decided their disability entitled them to violate my consent would just be fucked up and concerning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (9 children)

    Just say break their Google glasses, and fuck. You.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Nah, because its the disability being leveraged to harm me with a total lack of ethics or concern by a spectacular piece of shit. The disability becomes the aggression, or a shield for it, here.

    And so hurting them on that axis becomes funny and good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    I am talking about people on actual crutches. Stop talking about kicking out crutches. That is cruel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Its the one I've had to fuck with for a year+ the various times I've re-learned to walk. And it was occasionally very funny when I'd slip while doing so.

    And I've been through enough of this shit that 'cruel' doesn't feel like the criticism you seem to think it should. I'm kind of proud of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I'm sorry you had to deal with that. But it is not as funny to others as it seems to be for you. 

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Why do I care what you find funny?

    Edit: most peoples' senses of humor are toxic hierarchalist moral-bludgeon nonsense, and their laughter is genuinely disgusting. I don't know if that's you, but it's on the border of null hypothesis for anglophones.

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

    Generally it is not good to attack people with crutches.

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

    Generally those crutches are not a tool of oppression directed at me, generally those crutches aren't their user actively selling my soul to the devil in silicon valley, or my body to the storm troopers who are going to kill me before the decade's out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    I suffer from prosopagnosia (face blindness), so facial recognition would be legitimately useful for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Unfortunately it's unlikely for this to be implemented in a privacy-respecting way. Arguably, even if it never "phones home", it's always going to be a more risky option—e.g. police can seize the glasses and see who you've seen, whereas they can't seize your brain and see what faces you've seen. You might be fine with that risk, but will everyone you ever meet be fine with it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    There's no privacy in public. End of story. There's no privacy to respect in a public space.

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

    You don't just wear glasses in public. You wear them in private settings too.

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

    ok, this isn't a private setting though. If she had attacked him for filming her in private i'd %1000 support her. I dont support ppl being violent because they feel like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Cool, run a local tool. No harm in that.

    But ifyou snitch on my location yo Facebook at all times, I'm gonna break the glasses and whatever you put them on, no remorse.

    You do not get to surveil and put people at risk like that, your disability can get fucked if that's your accommodatin.

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

    Reasonably speaking, you have no way of knowing if smart glasses are local or remote processing just by looking at them.

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

    reasonably speaking, there are no smartglasses today that are capable of doing that locally, and even if there would, that does not guarantee in any way that it keeps the data locally. youre a walking surveillance camera, and like it or not, if people don't like that, that's their decision.

    I'm surprised teslas and other such surveillance trucks are not vandalized more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 118 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 33 points 11 months ago (28 children)

    While Meta built in a small LED light in the front of its glasses to indicate when it’s recording a video, it can easily be covered by a small piece of tape, making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent. As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.

    I was under the impression that covering the LED would prevent the camera function from working. I guess it doesn't.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    making it trivially easy to spy on strangers in public without their knowledge or consent.

    Hang on. I don't need Meta glasses to spy on strangers in public. I can creep perfectly fine in my mirrored sunglasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    and hidden cameras are a thing. The only reason the camera is worn is to know what target to focus upon.

    Footage from cops cams are from chest level. These cop cams have been pushed upon cops because they lie 100% of the time. I enjoy their stories. The more absurd the better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (21 children)

    huh? people in public can be recorded without their consent. that's what being in public is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    Yeah, but usually you know you're being recorded because you can see the recording device. I think it's fair to film in public, but not secretly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    Why does secretly matter? Unless they're peeping under a skirt. It's not "spying" - you're in public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    If you know you're being filmed, you usually modify your behavior accordingly. You can actively participate in whatever's being filmed, double-check your posture, cover your face and walk away, etc. Not everyone wants their image spread online, so it's important to give people the opportunity to avoid being filmed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago

    Clearly she did know she was being filmed but thats besides the points. 1: you're nearly always being filmed in public.

    My point is you're not being spied on if you're in public. Grown ass adult crying "stop looking at me!!!!!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    Why do you care if you have nothing to hide is a weak argument that’s been used to erode our rights. Fuck off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    Dumb fuck, you dont have a "right" to privacy in public. Also i never said that you fucking moron. Have fun fighting imaginary arguments in an empty room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    You absolutely do, and even the Supreme Court has sided that you have some expectation of privacy. Blanket “you don’t have a right to privacy” is why I’m calling you a dumbass. The EFF even agrees with me.

    I don’t know what empty rooms you’re in, but I’m not surprised I guess given the kind of creep you are.

    EFF article

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    You should try reading that article yourself, which is about aggregated, long-term tracking (like GPS data or ALPR networks) and persistent surveillance over time, which is very different from the moment-to-moment visibility you have on a train.

    Damn dude, you look really fucking stupid here, do you want to try again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Actually you're the one looking fucking stupid, here.

    The idea that we don't have the right to privacy in public was first argued in regards to legitimate use of cameras in public and when a video maker does (or doesn't) need to get your permission.

    If you're caught on camera incidentally during a news story about a house fire. Or you're in the background of a surveillance tape of a robbery they're showing on the news. Or traffic cameras, or cop dash cams. Legitimate uses where public interest is a priority.

    If a filmmaker is shooting a scene on location (for an example of the other direction), and they happen to catch some members of the public, they need to get those people to sign a consent form, or else they can't use the footage. This is the law, I believe, EVERYWHERE that has ever argued this in court.

    So yes, while there are legitimate reasons that a person's privacy is considered able to be suspended (such as news in the public interest), contributing to some incel's spank-bank isn't one of those reasons. And you're a fucking idiot if you don't grasp that concept.

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

    You couldn't be more wrong. You're conflating commercial image rights, public interest reporting, and actual privacy rights. You can be filmed in public all day legally; you just might not be able to sell your image commercially without a release. Public visibility doesn’t give you privacy - that’s why cops, traffic cams, and news footage can film you legally. Filmmakers needing consent is about commercial exploitation of someone’s image, not a magic ‘right to not be seen.’ And just because some uses are gross doesn’t suddenly create a legal privacy right. Public exposure ≠ privacy. Period. Oh, and fucking idiot = you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    So you agree you have a right to privacy in public? How are you soooo close to getting it and then losing the fucking plot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    jesus christ your ego can't let you admit you're wrong. What a fucking clown you are lol. No you do not "have a right to privacy in public" and thats a stupid thing to say, and you are stupid for dying on this hill. What a fucking loser

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

    Damn did you polish your comment to mirror finish?

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

    lol, what does that even mean, you fucking clown

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

    That means he admires your prose, as do i, and you can just say thank you.

    Not being able to grasp that effectively proves your judgement on his IQ might be off. Or being a rage monkey occasionally needs an on/off switch. It's as easy as picking up on psyche.

    In this case, you shoulda coulda quit while you were ahead. You had me sold

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

    I'm not even legally allowed to aim a camera doorbell to the street

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

    in the USA basically every third home as a doorbell camera these days. you are constantly being recorded everywhere you go, at least in urban areas. anytime i walk my dog at night everyone's doorbell cams are lighting up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    There should be a short of noise that's made when a video or picture is taken/recording, kinda like how all Japanese phones are legally required to have a shutter click noise. It'd be nice if the LED being covered disabled the camera though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    As Daily Dot points out, people are even selling stickers for this specific purpose.

    From what I've heard the glasses have become popular among university students, and they've become yet another issue that has to be looked out for there.

    The amount of precautions that have to be taken during exam time at universities keeps increasing. The testing rooms these days sound like they're locked down as tightly as a jail.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 109 points 11 months ago (19 children)

    He went out in public with the intention of provoking strangers, recording their reactions, and publishing it on the internet for profit. A stranger got a bit more provoked than he had preferred. It turns out that some people won't be fine with being provoked, recorded, and published on the internet. How strange.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    "I even let her sit down when she got on the train at 42nd street, and I continued to stand.”

    Bro did nothing but stand still and is taking credit for "allowing" her to sit lmao

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 11 months ago

    not sitting to leave the seat open for someone is still doing something, you just don't see the action as it was a mental decision to leave the seat free for someone else. he could have easily just sat.

    that said, screw his little spy glasses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 11 months ago

    You dropped this, queen. 👑

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    I've never been to America and even I know not to be a dick on a New York subway.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Can we have local AI type of tech that does not save videos? Something without a wireless connection.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Technically possible. You'd just need to connect your glasses to a backpack computer with 5kg of batteries if you want more than 2 hours of battery life.

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

    I'm thinking this might have been a publicity stunt for either her or the glasses. If you see her launch a career from this then you know it was for her, meta wins either way.

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

    Before facebook even existed a Canadian company was producing contact lens which trsnsmitted light onto the retina to create virtual reality interfaces. They of course had glasses form product as well.

    So discussing big ugly glasses is 30-40 year old tech.

    Keep in mind, VR investment scam has been around forever. But ok tell me why this time is different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Just because something has been around for years doesn't mean manufactures don't want you talking about their product. Cars.., it has special newer wheels. See how cool they look.

    Phones... Look at the all new improved camera.

    What's that phrase ,any publicity is good publicity. People are taking about your product and its free and spreading.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    68 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post