BBC News - Woman covertly filmed for ‘humiliating’ social media content - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cdxpqg22q34o
Video version of the original story. He comes across as a creep.
Literally black mirror
What were the victims doing that would incriminate them? I am not saying that it isn’t enough to just not want to be filmed, but most people don’t seem to care about privacy so I am wondering if they had some leverage.
They don’t have to be doing something.
You just capture their likeness and Ai prompts do the rest.
Ooof.
Btw I have video of you engaged in passionate sexual congress with a platypus. Send me bitcoin or your mother sees it!
How did you know about my platypus kink? Please send it to me.
probably being a woman while naked
another reason to continue masking in public tbh
probably going to start purposefully looking away from people if they try to talk to me with those on and if they push it I’ll ask them to take them off and if they refuse to disengage completely
I know none of this is foolproof but it at least is social pressure and signalling to anyone around that I’m trying to avoid them if it escalates
It might work if you’re a man but if you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter what you do, if a man wants to film you, follow you, harass you, he will do it. And now he’s filming it too and posting it online for profit.
If they go black mirror, black mirror them back: block them. Physically they talk, you don’t respond. They don’t exist anymore.
I got a tour of a military base with a guy who was wearing smart glasses and I couldn’t fucking believe that someone didn’t grab them off his face and break them in half. I was being VERY careful to ask if I was permitted to take pictures in some places (in at least one of which where the answer was No), and this dude was cruising around like Boris Badunov trying to gather secrets.
Might be a good time to tell someone.
I DID tell the guide what he was wearing because I didn’t want us to end up in a military detention cell but the guide was like “Eh, it’s fine,” so I guess it was, but boy it didn’t feel like it should have been!
it was fine because guide probably didnt understand the concept of glasses being able to record stuff, otherwise it would have been fine for you to take pictures too.
Maybe he was taken aside and questioned afterwards, hopefully. Or, rather, they don’t show critical infrastructure to strangers at all.
Well in that case the guide should be on the line for the fuckup
This is not about smart glasses.
holding a glass slab in front of someone’s face is a lot more likely to be clocked.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. They are cheaper and even less obvious than thick black ray bans.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. T
It is entirely about smart glasses. button cameras have been around for AGES. But they have shit lenses and crap sensors; these fucking chodes want to up the production value on the nonconsensual porn they already shoot with their phones - on the stairs up skirts, down the blouses of women, etc.,
they want a head cam with better resolution and head tracking.
keep advocating for the perverts
But they have shit lenses and crap sensors
Gopros are 4k and can be much less visible than chunky glasses.
keep advocating for the perverts
Strange logic. You are hyperfocused on a particular product. I’m highlighting the more serious concerns. Neither of us are “advocating for the perverts”.
Smart glasses are probably where the privacy debate around AI becomes truly mainstream. Phones are visible, wearable AI cameras are much harder for people to recognize in real time. It feels like society is heading toward a major legal and ethical adjustment period.
A person can already LOOK anywhere they want, and almost every inch of ground is covered by surveillance cameras that are recording your every move.
This just combines two things that are already happening. When it gets to court, I doubt a judge is going to care much.
Smart glasses have absolutely nothing to do with AI. They’re just cameras.
Are they now? Its in the name.
I think AI granting the ability for nearly anyone to easily manipulate short videos in a way that looks realistic might be where it comes into the picture.
Having video evidence of everything you do is just unsettling at the very least if you ask me.
Meta AI smart glasses exist, doesn’t it?
Not thick enough.
If you act like a twat, you can be called out online. But only affects you if you online.
Im not online anywhere, except here. And this place sucks and has 4 users, and if it gets better/bigger im leaving.
https://youtube.com/shorts/jm2c--qzSbk
If you buy these things you’re a fucking creep
“It’s for my dad” 🤣
When capitalism is failing and hope gets diminished, extortion is just another revenue stream. Money, money, money, Mahn-eh!
I swear if someone approaches me with these glasses they’re going to find out just how fragile those frames are.
We have a real baddy here. So tough.
Aw you think I’m a baddie? Thanks sweetheart
Complain to management about secret surveillance . That’s how original Google glasses were defeated
No. They weren’t defeated. They looked dumb and no one wanted to wear them all the time. They simply evolved into the type of glasses, which are now all over.
Defeated? Aren’t we establishing right fucking here and now that they weren’t defeated, just streamlined? Am I hallucinating this thread and comment I’m typing?
Ohh, right but Google and Meta are different. How did I not give one single fuck about that detail??? Man I’m stupid. Fucking IDIOT I am. Definitely not you. Me, I’m the stupid fucking moron. Not you.
precisely why I won’t talk to someone wearing a camera, or pointing a camera at me… I’ll stand there in silence the entire time, or just walk away.
put the camera down, talk or buh bye…
The point is that she didn’t even know she was being recorded. That’s why this story is all about the smart glasses being used to covertly record people.
“But I want to document what you say!”
🤐🖕
Only time it’s acceptable is in front of a cop since they can’t be trusted to operate the cameras they should be wearing themselves
Any public servants, really. Private citizens in public should have a bit of protection from potential harassment.
Need some of those things movie stars use against the paparazzi.
fists?
I suspect they meant the patterned clothing that confuses cameras.
I am against constant surveillance and these are huge privacy violations, especially because it seems very unlikely they’re storing the media exclusively locally. Also, the fact that they can be more discreet than many other options for recording is concerning.
The first two ads I ever saw for these were of a guy using them to quietly cheat at, IIRC, a board game; and of someone having a conversation, only to realize the other party was recording it. They looked like legit ads, but I’m not sure how anyone could think that was positive press.
All that said, the number of people advocating violence in response is alarming. Depending on the environment, I feel the appropriate response is to ask the wearer to remove them and then, if they refuse, remove either yourself or them from the situation. Obviously no one solution fits all situations and there may be situations where violence is warranted, but it is surprising to me that it seems to be the default.
edit: Recently started using a new keyboard on my phone, had to correct a word it chose for me. The meaning I was trying to convey was not altered.
I agree. Creating an environment where people have no recourse but to logically need to respond with violence is quite alarming. If only there were people citizens could call and implicitly trust to serve and protect them without being like, kidnapped or just murdered for their skin color. Society should really try its best to eliminate those elements. Oh well, until then at least we have fists and crowbars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It seems like you might not actually be agreeing with me.
But I said I agree and didn’t even use a /s tag. I always use those for my sarcastic comments, which are rare and used sparingly.
While your argument is compelling, I still have my doubts about your sincerity.
So WW2 dazzle camouflage? As a bonus, you are also protected from packs of roving U-boats!
That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.
FWIW, my state is basically the opposite of land locked. I’m not comfortable with telling lies. I don’t mind saying things that are inaccurate to make someone laugh but I don’t want to make anyone believe those claims.
That’s a constant concern in my land locked state, so it’s good to be sure.
The landshark U-boats are a real menace. They can climb out of a farmer’s pond like walking catfish and the next thing you know, they’re torpedoing a grain silo in Peoria.
One of my groomsmen always defended his fear of water by saying “there could be kaiju army crawling under there, you don’t know!”
What did she do that was humiliating? I get not wanting random videos of oneself online, but why is she so anxious about the video? She was just shopping, what so embarrassing about that?
He was trying to pick her up, she didn’t want him to, he kept trying, then he posted it online and she was embarrassed and asked him to remove it. He said he will if she pays. She feels humiliated and she was used.
Could even be nothing. I’m imagining part of it being social engineering, gaslight people into thinking the video you have of them is embarrasing
Or baiting people into reactive abuse, and editing the video to make it look like they were the aggressor.
