| "Pervert glasses" 12:56 - Jul 24 with 2150 views | jayessess |
Early incidents of people using smart glasses to covertly film and harass women: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
Since it is incredibly obvious that this is what they would be used for, why on Earth did UK governments not get ahead of this and ban them coming into use? Why do we have to wait for all sorts of obvious harms from non-consensual filming to occur first?
(I know why, it's because the reflex of literally everyone in politics and business is to bend the knee to whatever tech giants want at every turn) [Post edited 24 Jul 12:58]
|  |
| |  |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:06 - Jul 24 with 1886 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
The problem is that filming or photographing someone on the street is not illegal, if it's in a public place no consent is needed. So to ban these would lead to a stretch into photography and filming, and drone work if anyone else is in shot.
The question is what these actually do and why they exist, you can easily argue that they are much more covert than traditional cameras or video equipment, so why are they needed? Zuckerberg and Ray-Ban/Oakley are the only ones who can answer that.
One answer would be to introduce legislation that would make recording 'covertly' illegal, that would protect general photography and filmmaking, but I suspect the security services would have objections.
Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 24 Jul 13:09]
|  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:09 - Jul 24 with 1838 views | StokieBlue |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:06 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
The problem is that filming or photographing someone on the street is not illegal, if it's in a public place no consent is needed. So to ban these would lead to a stretch into photography and filming, and drone work if anyone else is in shot.
The question is what these actually do and why they exist, you can easily argue that they are much more covert than traditional cameras or video equipment, so why are they needed? Zuckerberg and Ray-Ban/Oakley are the only ones who can answer that.
One answer would be to introduce legislation that would make recording 'covertly' illegal, that would protect general photography and filmmaking, but I suspect the security services would have objections.
Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 24 Jul 13:09]
|
However filming stations, airports, political buildings etc is usually banned but would be hard to enforce with these glasses.
Also standing there filming women would hopefully be challenged by someone, that's not going to happen as easily with smart glasses.
They do look open to a lot of abuse.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:11 - Jul 24 with 1815 views | badadski |
What is the difference between these and say a go pro or a hidden pin camera, mobile phone hid away but secretly filming. Not really a lot. If people want to be creeps and go around filming people then they will invariably do so as per all these videos uploaded to you tube of girls at beaches, a night on the town or after a night out loitering the streets.
Sick world we live in where exploitation or trying to get a quick level up to fame using online media, streams is just the norm for a lot of people. [Post edited 24 Jul 13:11]
|  | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:15 - Jul 24 with 1739 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:09 - Jul 24 by StokieBlue |
However filming stations, airports, political buildings etc is usually banned but would be hard to enforce with these glasses.
Also standing there filming women would hopefully be challenged by someone, that's not going to happen as easily with smart glasses.
They do look open to a lot of abuse.
SB |
"However filming stations, airports, political buildings etc is usually banned"
No they aren't, unless filming from on the property boundaries. You can't film a train station from the train station car park, but if you are on the public highway, you can. Same with airports (although more difficult to be on the public highway and the same again with political buildings.
The exceptions to this are locations deemed 'a prohibited place under the official secrets act', for example GCHQ right by me. | |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:27 - Jul 24 with 1609 views | NthQldITFC |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:15 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
"However filming stations, airports, political buildings etc is usually banned"
No they aren't, unless filming from on the property boundaries. You can't film a train station from the train station car park, but if you are on the public highway, you can. Same with airports (although more difficult to be on the public highway and the same again with political buildings.
The exceptions to this are locations deemed 'a prohibited place under the official secrets act', for example GCHQ right by me. |
...and the Ladies' College? |  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:31 - Jul 24 with 1569 views | bsw72 |
The root of the problem is not with the technology companies, it is how a subsection of the male population choose to view and treat women - and is a far more serious social issue. |  | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:35 - Jul 24 with 1530 views | StokieBlue |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:15 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
"However filming stations, airports, political buildings etc is usually banned"
No they aren't, unless filming from on the property boundaries. You can't film a train station from the train station car park, but if you are on the public highway, you can. Same with airports (although more difficult to be on the public highway and the same again with political buildings.
The exceptions to this are locations deemed 'a prohibited place under the official secrets act', for example GCHQ right by me. |
Sorry, should have been clearer. I mean from platform or on security or customs at the airport etc due to anti-terrorism policies designed to stop planning of attacks.
Even where not illegal it's certainly frowned upon and you could be challenged by staff.
SB | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:38 - Jul 24 with 1486 views | Bobbychase |
What a surprise, AI is already proving a problem and glasses that can take images and footage are being used by deviants.
Wonder why we couldn't see this coming |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:52 - Jul 24 with 1312 views | CrockerITFC |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:06 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
The problem is that filming or photographing someone on the street is not illegal, if it's in a public place no consent is needed. So to ban these would lead to a stretch into photography and filming, and drone work if anyone else is in shot.
The question is what these actually do and why they exist, you can easily argue that they are much more covert than traditional cameras or video equipment, so why are they needed? Zuckerberg and Ray-Ban/Oakley are the only ones who can answer that.
One answer would be to introduce legislation that would make recording 'covertly' illegal, that would protect general photography and filmmaking, but I suspect the security services would have objections.
Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 24 Jul 13:09]
|
They are helpful to some people, blind people for instance can use them to help them read text as they also have bone conductor headphones in the arms of the glasses. So they can provide the text in an audio format. |  | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:57 - Jul 24 with 1253 views | bsw72 |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:38 - Jul 24 by Bobbychase |
What a surprise, AI is already proving a problem and glasses that can take images and footage are being used by deviants.
Wonder why we couldn't see this coming |
To be clear - this issue is not really about AI, it is about the hidden / concealed camera and filimg without consent, in this scenario it just happens to be using the Meta glasses or the Ray-Ban smart glasses, but the issue is fundamentally the same as this story from 2 weeks ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art
Not forgetting this one which pre-dates AI explosion from aroung 2005 onwards: https://noah-news.com/how-hidd
It's about how a subsection of the male population view and treat women as a commodity to be abused. It's vile but AI can't really be held accountable for this issue. | | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 14:06 - Jul 24 with 1177 views | ronnyd |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:38 - Jul 24 by Bobbychase |
What a surprise, AI is already proving a problem and glasses that can take images and footage are being used by deviants.
Wonder why we couldn't see this coming |
Would it be considered assault or theft if you snatched them from the wearers head and chucked them under the nearest cars wheels? | | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 14:20 - Jul 24 with 1086 views | Ryorry |
Another problem discussed on ‘the Tech Show’ or similar name on the World Service last night- some service dogs are now trained to detect pregnancy and diseases like cancer. Who ‘owns’ individuals’ scents once they leave their bodies? |  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 14:30 - Jul 24 with 998 views | longtimefan |
| "Pervert glasses" on 14:06 - Jul 24 by ronnyd |
Would it be considered assault or theft if you snatched them from the wearers head and chucked them under the nearest cars wheels? |
Not if you play for Wolves  | | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 14:47 - Jul 24 with 894 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:52 - Jul 24 by CrockerITFC |
They are helpful to some people, blind people for instance can use them to help them read text as they also have bone conductor headphones in the arms of the glasses. So they can provide the text in an audio format. |
And that's great, but do we really think that's the reason, Zuckerberg and Meta created them.
What you describe is a happy coincidence. | |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:04 - Jul 24 with 803 views | ElderGrizzly |
The AI glasses have so much potential, particularly in fields such as medical.
The fact they are hijacked by the Andrew Tate brigade doesn't change their potential. |  | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:13 - Jul 24 with 730 views | CrockerITFC |
| "Pervert glasses" on 14:47 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
And that's great, but do we really think that's the reason, Zuckerberg and Meta created them.
What you describe is a happy coincidence. |
Actually it was one of the reasons for them being designed in the first place.
I'm not in any way a fan of Meta or Zuckerberg, for that matter, and I'm not surprised that this is one of the other uses of the glasses. I am sure that Meta hasn't been blindsided by this (no pun intended).
I am, however, equally annoyed with Ray-Bans for lowering their brand to these glasses. | | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:14 - Jul 24 with 727 views | Pendejo |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:06 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
The problem is that filming or photographing someone on the street is not illegal, if it's in a public place no consent is needed. So to ban these would lead to a stretch into photography and filming, and drone work if anyone else is in shot.
The question is what these actually do and why they exist, you can easily argue that they are much more covert than traditional cameras or video equipment, so why are they needed? Zuckerberg and Ray-Ban/Oakley are the only ones who can answer that.
One answer would be to introduce legislation that would make recording 'covertly' illegal, that would protect general photography and filmmaking, but I suspect the security services would have objections.
Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 24 Jul 13:09]
|
Re your last paragraph edited in
"Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked."
And this from BBC article
"Many of the influencers, including the man who posted the video of Kim, gain income from the advice they offer to clients."
Doesn't this mean that the fella has filmed for commercial purposes?
Also, Dilara's phone number is revealed, breaching Data Protection as she has not consented to her data being shared (see also Kim re job / Family)
Should be prosecuted as such |  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:21 - Jul 24 with 685 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:14 - Jul 24 by Pendejo |
Re your last paragraph edited in
"Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked."
And this from BBC article
"Many of the influencers, including the man who posted the video of Kim, gain income from the advice they offer to clients."
Doesn't this mean that the fella has filmed for commercial purposes?
Also, Dilara's phone number is revealed, breaching Data Protection as she has not consented to her data being shared (see also Kim re job / Family)
Should be prosecuted as such |
Yep. Absolutely. Everything you've said is spot on. | |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:24 - Jul 24 with 666 views | Mullet |
Assumed this was gonna be another latitude thread at first glance.
Even if we take out the noncey/sexpest element of the debate, they strike me as a very niche product. Mainly with social media in mind. Both in terms of being seen to have them as a desirable product and in making content.
I’ve seen a few social media posts that are pov or the person has both hands in use eg a barber or whatever, but does the world really need that?
Hopefully they become a bit like those fat blokes who go round with ten cameras on a stick calling themselves auditors. Anyone seen doing that immediately gets ostracised and ridiculed. |  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:29 - Jul 24 with 625 views | CrockerITFC |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:14 - Jul 24 by Pendejo |
Re your last paragraph edited in
"Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked."
And this from BBC article
"Many of the influencers, including the man who posted the video of Kim, gain income from the advice they offer to clients."
Doesn't this mean that the fella has filmed for commercial purposes?
Also, Dilara's phone number is revealed, breaching Data Protection as she has not consented to her data being shared (see also Kim re job / Family)
Should be prosecuted as such |
100% this! | | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:33 - Jul 24 with 605 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| "Pervert glasses" on 13:06 - Jul 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
The problem is that filming or photographing someone on the street is not illegal, if it's in a public place no consent is needed. So to ban these would lead to a stretch into photography and filming, and drone work if anyone else is in shot.
The question is what these actually do and why they exist, you can easily argue that they are much more covert than traditional cameras or video equipment, so why are they needed? Zuckerberg and Ray-Ban/Oakley are the only ones who can answer that.
One answer would be to introduce legislation that would make recording 'covertly' illegal, that would protect general photography and filmmaking, but I suspect the security services would have objections.
Edit: Forgot to add, that photographing or filming in public is not illegal, but if done for commercial purposes, then you would need to obtain model releases from those involved. But, to be honest this is rarely checked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art [Post edited 24 Jul 13:09]
|
Don't you remember how we were all demanding smart glasses so they had to make them for us? That's how this works isn't it? |  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:39 - Jul 24 with 547 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:24 - Jul 24 by Mullet |
Assumed this was gonna be another latitude thread at first glance.
Even if we take out the noncey/sexpest element of the debate, they strike me as a very niche product. Mainly with social media in mind. Both in terms of being seen to have them as a desirable product and in making content.
I’ve seen a few social media posts that are pov or the person has both hands in use eg a barber or whatever, but does the world really need that?
Hopefully they become a bit like those fat blokes who go round with ten cameras on a stick calling themselves auditors. Anyone seen doing that immediately gets ostracised and ridiculed. |
All they're likely to film at Latitude this year is clouds of dust! | |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:42 - Jul 24 with 530 views | BloomBlue |
A pervert will always be a pervert. It was bad enough for years on the underground especially when they first started adding cameras to smartphones. Perverts sitting opposite females and pretending to be looking at their phones but with the phone at such an angle to try and snap a photo up a skirt when the female got off the seat.
Maybe we should ban cameras on phones. |  | | |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:44 - Jul 24 with 501 views | Benters |
I have got off a train and some chap was filming a young ladies bottom when she was walking in yoga pants.
He than sped up and looked at her from the front,where she basically told him to FO.
He filmed her using a phone.
The chap and his mates then spent a lot of time in town (Colchester) letching at the young ladies as they were walking past. |  |
| |
| "Pervert glasses" on 16:03 - Jul 24 with 433 views | CrockerITFC |
| "Pervert glasses" on 15:44 - Jul 24 by Benters |
I have got off a train and some chap was filming a young ladies bottom when she was walking in yoga pants.
He than sped up and looked at her from the front,where she basically told him to FO.
He filmed her using a phone.
The chap and his mates then spent a lot of time in town (Colchester) letching at the young ladies as they were walking past. |
Sounds like a confession, Benters! :D | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
