[infinite_spin]

Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them. So why the ad hominems? What is your best argument against these devices? When I go to a coffee shop I do so with the understanding that the establishment is likely recording me, are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in public and/or commercial spaces?

[dabinat]

Generally public places do not have cameras that record your interactions with others in detail (including sound) and the owners of the establishment generally do not interact with you for the sole purpose of generating footage they can monetize online.

Additionally there are laws and expectations around cameras in places like bathrooms. Those laws still exist for smartglasses-wearers, but it can be hard to police if it is not obvious that the glasses have cameras and are recording.

[sapphicsnail]

> Help me understand this attitude, because I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them.

How? This is just going to give a bunch of creepy men an easier way to film me. I'm dreading these getting mainstream adoption.

[infinite_spin]

I'll give a personal example. At a coffee shop I go to, someone repeatedly threatened to kill me. The owners would call the police, and they'd take a report, but without direct evidence the police claimed to have no power other than to trespass this individual. Which they did. Since that first time, he's threatened to kidnap, torture, and then murder me on several occasions. For my own safety, it would have been nice to have a video/audio of these events. As you might imagine, pulling out my phone and filming it seems like a dangerous option.

[lesostep]

I'm sorry, there is a guy in a coffee shop that routinely threatens you, and it's still is your go to place?

Damn, just how good is that coffee?

(if that's real, and pulling phone out really is dangerous, can't you just ask the employee to film next time it happens for 10 bucks?)

[infinite_spin]

The coffee isn't why I go there, it's where my friends meet up, and I go to the gym next door. He's also threatened employees, one quit. I'm not sure why you're making jokes, but since you are it seems like I should double down and insist that I have the right to film such encounters.. especially when my account of these events isn't taken seriously.

[lesostep]

I'm half joking because the situation is quite bizarre and I never encountered anything like that.

Where I live usually it takes a few eyewitnesses testifying for a police to take someone into custody for a few hours and give them a talk (like general "don't do it again or next time we will detain you for a 15 days" talk). And after a few talks, they would generally really just detain someone (it's different from a criminal record)

Not to mention the owner could just ban a person thatch bad for business. Or just install a camera, since police demands a proof.

From your retelling it seems like not only owner doesn't give a damn about it being bad for business, it's actually isn't even bad for business! You still go there, your friends still go there (do they know that you fear for your life filming the evidence of abuse for police to take action? Surely a friend would help you film this. Or at least be sympathetic enough not to go to a place where you fear for your life?).

I'm not saying anything about your testimony, but from your words alone it really seems like you life on a different plane of reality from everyone around you.

To hear you tell it, you can genuinely be killed or assaulted but everyone (including your friends??) is okay with that. And – most confusingly – you yourself is also okay with that?

I can't just wrap my head around that. If I feared for my life and health, I would just not go there, and fuck my friends for suggesting to risk it. Are you suicidal? Is that a missing piece of puzzle? Because even when I try to believe you, those pieces do not fit together.

[infinite_spin]

> I'm half joking because the situation is quite bizarre and I never encountered anything like that.

half joking is still joking, and this is not a "quite bizarre" situation, in fact it's rather common for people to make threats. It's "quite bizarre" to me that you don't realize this.

> Not to mention the owner could just ban a person thatch bad for business. Or just install a camera, since police demands a proof.

I think I mentioned, the owners did in fact trespass this person. Aside from that, the cameras don't have audio.

I think I need to end this conversation, because it's going off track into my personal life more than I'd like, and I don't think your investigative (or joking) tone is appropriate. My example stands, from my perspective, as a valid reason to want this technology.

[smokedetector1]

you genuinely dont see a difference between

(1) a single or handful of security-angled cameras controlled by a local business for security purposes

(2) any individual possibly recording you at eye level at any second without you knowing, and having the ability to use and manipulate that footage and upload it to the internet

[garciansmith]

Plus: (1) the security camera footage is constantly overwritten. (2) the video from the glasses is being uploaded to Meta.

[g-b-r]

Ok, let's not assume (1), plenty of cameras are connected to law enforcement, upload everything to a random cloud service, are trivially accessible by others online, or are made by sketchy Chinese companies.

[infinite_spin]

Not a substantial difference, recordings of both kinds are uploaded to the internet all the time. So if we're not going to forbid one, then I don't see a significant enough reason to forbid the other. What it seems like is that you offer your trust for one situation, because you benefit from it, but are unwilling to trust the other, because you don't. This seems like selfishness, especially after years of being told there is no presumption of privacy in public spaces.

From my vantage, this appears to be a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. If you support filming in public spaces, but believe restricting that to only those you trust, then this is hypocrisy.

[smokedetector1]

I believe NYC cops should be able to have guns. I dont want guns to be widely accessible in NYC.

I’m comfortable with armed security at an airport. I’m less comfortable at a supermarket.

absolute rules only hold in math. in life, almost everything is a matter of degree and of details. that doesnt make it hypocrisy

[infinite_spin]

We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights. When we say some people have those rights more than others, we destroy equality under our laws, at the very root of our system. I think it muddies the water to call these "absolute" rules, they're clearly up for interpretation, but what shouldn't be up for interpretation is their applicability to all, in "absolute". If you're going to say "rules for thee but not for me", then we view these rules in a fundamentally different way.

[smokedetector1]

Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

Children have different labor restrictions than adults.

Police have different gun access than civilians.

Businesses pay a different set of taxes than individuals.

And allowing businesses to do camera surveillance when you enter their property is in no way the same as allowing everyone to videotape each other at all times covertly and without consent. I really can't understand what process of reasoning could even get you there, besides "equal rights absolutism," which makes no sense.

[infinite_spin]

> Identical treatment of all people in all situations for all laws does not exist and should not exist.

How did you arrive at this statement from "We need equal rights, ones that exist for everyone, i.e. constitutional rights"? Seems like you're making an appeal to extremes.

[Barbing]

>I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products

Anyone have data on this? Feelin’ doubtful

[Nursie]

Easy - covert recording of other people in public is not OK.

This ridiculous idea that "it's in public so you have no expectation of privacy" is a semantic retcon, the pervasiveness of cameras is new and fundamentally changes your level of exposure in the public sphere. Overtly recording people in public is not really OK. Face-mounted, covert recording is another step too far and offensive to most people.

If you genuinely wish to understand the attitude, may I recommend doing a deep dive into the many fine articles written about this back in 2013-15, when Google failed to launch the original glasshole-wear.

[infinite_spin]

> covert recording of other people in public is not OK

This rules out the use of dash cams then.. but I'm sure you realize the public benefit those offer, so I'm reluctant to accept this argument.

[Nursie]

I think it can be a general rule without being a concrete one, and is heavily context dependent.

I agree that dash cams are for the most part OK, because for the most part they're recording for safety reasons and evidence in case of accidents. But sitting in a coffee shop as a private citizen, recording everyone that comes in without any particular justification would not really be OK, covertly or overtly. Even though the owner might be doing the same thing for security.

So perhaps "covert recording of other people in public without an accepted, socially justifiable reason, is not OK"

[infinite_spin]

I'm not a fan of rules that aren't concrete, especially when the opposition tends to muddy the water and use ad hominems to justify their opinions. Lacking a clear set of rules has never led us to a safer community.

[Nursie]

> I'm not a fan of rules that aren't concrete

Then you are going to have a hard time in a society filled with other humans, or living with a legal system that takes human complexity and grey areas into account in so many different ways.

Outside of a parser or a maths class, rules are rarely that concrete.

(Reading your other comments, I am sorry that your experiences have lead you to be so scared going about your day to day life that you think recording every interaction is a necessary thing to do. I'm afraid you're not going to find a lot of people who agree with that, and many who will find the idea very intrusive, though I suspect you're far from the only one in your position.

FYI if you go down this route, in some countries it is a legal, not just social, requirement that people be notified that you're recording them, particularly when it comes to audio, see one-party or two-party consent jurisdictions etc, while recording of direct threats may be legit, blanket recording of all interactions or of other people's conversations, as a precautionary measure, may not be)

[infinite_spin]

> Then you are going to have a hard time in a society filled with other humans, or living with a legal system that takes human complexity and grey areas into account in so many different ways.

Yes, and from my perspective that's corruption of society. We must at least make an effort to eliminate gray areas, otherwise we're failing our duty as citizens of that society.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[Barbing]

What was your favorite article on Glassholery?

[Nursie]

Honestly it's been so long I'd be a liar if I told you I remembered anything specific at this point!

[afavour]

> I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products, and they stand to gain a lot in terms of security from wearing them

How?

[Barbing]

Sounds like Flock CEO thinking. If everyone wore a bodycam, the world would be crime free. (The thinking must stop before downsides are considered.)

[infinite_spin]

How does having a video record of encounters benefit women? I'm sure you can figure that out. You only have to remind yourself of what catcalling is.

[afavour]

Think a little deeper. It is already possible for women to record these encounters and many do. It is widely known the police do nothing about it and the videos make no difference.

[lotsofpulp]

Most videos might not make much of a difference today. However, in the future, perhaps Meta or Alphabet or Apple can offer a service that does facial recognition and provides a pervert/abuser score on who they are looking at via a heads up display on the glasses.

[afavour]

Jesus Christ what a dystopia

[lII1lIlI11ll]

> You only have to remind yourself of what catcalling is.

What do you think all these glasshole-women are going to do with bunch of (poor quality, grainy night) videos of some drunk bro on the street telling them "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"? Call FBI so they would give chase on a helicopter immediately?

[infinite_spin]

> glasshole-women

Please stop using ad hominem attacks, this is not the appropriate forum for such remarks.

> "nice rack you have there, sweetheart"

I assume that would be considered sexual harassment in most jurisdictions, which local police should concern themselves with, especially if it's happening to minors.

I'm at a loss for why you brought up the FBI.

[lII1lIlI11ll]

> Please stop using ad hominem attacks, this is not the appropriate forum for such remarks.

I feel quite strongly about people nonconsensually filming other people in public spaces. The proliferation of guides about disabling the indicators of active camera on smart glasses make me even more hesitant to normalize or condone such behavior.

> I assume that would be considered sexual harassment in most jurisdictions, which local police should concern themselves with, especially if it's happening to minors.

Stealing an Amazon package from your porch is also illegal in most jurisdictions yet police won't do anything with a video from your Ring doorbell showing some generic young-dude-in-a-baseball-cap-and-a-hoodie taking it away. They are only interested in such videos when investigating (what they consider) serious crimes.

> especially if it's happening to minors

You want minors to wear Meta glasses and film all the time? I shudder imagining growing up in such dystopia.

> I'm at a loss for why you brought up the FBI.

Sorry, that was a snark about how people who support installing smart doorbells and Flock cameras everywhere imagine police would react to a video showing someone stealing a bag from their car or a package from their porch.

[afavour]

I suspect the OP is being somewhat sarcastic because it is widely known that the police will do absolutely nothing about a report of catcalling, video or not.

[photios]

It's okay to record everyone around you all the time because:

1. Women do it. 2. The government does it. 3. Private businesses do it.

What?!

[infinite_spin]

4. Dash cams do it 5. News agencies do it 6. Parents with babysitters do it

I'm not sure this is helping your argument. Why are some entities given the benefit of the doubt, while most individuals are not?

[toofy]

> … are we going to accept this same rhetoric for anyone that films others in public and/or commercial spaces?

yes, please.

i think that is exactly the direction we should be pushing. this creepy compulsion to record random people is weird af.

[lotsofpulp]

Is there a better way to modulate others’ behavior?

Before, when it was he said, she said, it was always tenuous for the person with less power to pursue the issue. Now, they can finally access consequences for people violating their freedoms.

[squibonpig]

Social expectations, upbringing, interpersonal ties that make social behaviors potentially costly on a personal level to do wrong, all things the same people making the glasses made all of their money degrading?

[lotsofpulp]

Based on the numerous accounts of women being abused and police misconduct only prosecuted because it was caught on camera (and even then, not really), none of the things you bring up have worked.

[lII1lIlI11ll]

Same can be said about what is going on in bedrooms but I don't think that having stronger evidence for home abuse justify the invasion of privacy. And I don't think random people filming everything in bars/restaurants/night-clubs is a price I'm willing to pay just to make it easier to prosecute some crazies or drunken catcallers.

[lotsofpulp]

>Same can be said about what is going on in bedrooms

I don’t understand, people have the right to record their own bedrooms.

>And I don't think random people filming everything in bars/restaurants/night-clubs is a price I'm willing to pay just to make it easier to prosecute some crazies or drunken catcallers

But it is the price others are willing to pay. See how popular in car cameras are for taxi drivers, both for men and women. Or simply dash cams to prevent being caught in a costly litigation, with myriad accounts of intentional fraud disproven by video evidence.

It’s why calls are record for “quality assurance purposes”. People don’t expect that to not be recorded, simply because the cost to record came down a long time ago, but now the cost to record video has also come down.

[infinite_spin]

I would be satisfied with that, what bothers me is hypocrisy. If we want to do away with all of this behavior, then let's do so, but failing that then we're simply making up rules that some people have to follow, but others don't.