5 ms·

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

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?

toofy 3mo ago
> … 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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
      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 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
      >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 3mo ago
  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.
Nursie 3mo ago
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.
- Barbing 3mo ago
  What was your favorite article on Glassholery?
  - Nursie 3mo ago
    Honestly it's been so long I'd be a liar if I told you I remembered anything specific at this point!
- infinite_spin 3mo ago
  > 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 3mo ago
    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"
smokedetector1 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  Plus: (1) the security camera footage is constantly overwritten. (2) the video from the glasses is being uploaded to Meta.
  - g-b-r 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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
dabinat 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
> 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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
      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 3mo ago
        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.
photios 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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?
afavour 3mo ago
> 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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
  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.
  - lII1lIlI11ll 3mo ago
    > 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?
    - cindyllm 3mo ago
      [dead]
    - infinite_spin 3mo ago
      > 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.
      - afavour 3mo ago
Barbing 3mo ago
>I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products Anyone have data on this? Feelin’ doubtful

toofy 3mo ago

> … 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 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    >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 3mo ago
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.

Nursie 3mo ago

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.

Barbing 3mo ago
What was your favorite article on Glassholery?
- Nursie 3mo ago
  Honestly it's been so long I'd be a liar if I told you I remembered anything specific at this point!
infinite_spin 3mo ago
> 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 3mo ago
  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"

smokedetector1 3mo ago

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 3mo ago
Plus: (1) the security camera footage is constantly overwritten. (2) the video from the glasses is being uploaded to Meta.
- g-b-r 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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

dabinat 3mo ago

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 3mo ago

> 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 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
  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 3mo ago
    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 3mo ago
      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.

photios 3mo ago

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 3mo ago
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?

afavour 3mo ago

> 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 3mo ago
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 3mo ago
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.
- lII1lIlI11ll 3mo ago
  > 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?
  - cindyllm 3mo ago
    [dead]
  - infinite_spin 3mo ago
    > 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.
    - afavour 3mo ago

Barbing 3mo ago

>I've mostly seen women wearing these types of products Anyone have data on this? Feelin’ doubtful