4 ms·
Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use t
by threethirtytwo 2mo ago
Bro, read the article. As much as I hate corporations, this is not there fault. It's women who don't like perverts using the glasses and the perverts who use these glasses to look at women.
This is a phenomenon among the masses of consumers who use this tech, the corporation has nothing to do with it. In fact the corporation is trying to reign in your freedom to use these tools by stopping this perverted stuff from happening. Blame US, consumers, not our corporate overlords.
Here's what I think: I think it is essential to protect freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This is just an unfortunate consequence of those freedoms. If you want to protect womens discomfort then you have to restrict these freedoms. I'm against that. This is an unfortunate situation but the alternative is worse. Because ONCE those rules are in place and codified into law, censorship and freedoms can become bigger and worse.
Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena.
Either way, despite what I believe, it's already to late. This freedom is already restricted by Wiretapping law. If someone threatens to kill you and you wiretap it as evidence... that evidence is dismissible in court even after said subject (you) was found dead. We are rapidly moving towards a world where a persons discomfort can control your freedoms and even dictate reality (evidence).
- dgellow 2mo agoWhat does that have to do with freedom of speech? How is recording people without their consent or knowledge freedom of speech? That sounds absurd to me
- ipaddr 2mo agoThe law allows recording of people without consent or knowledge now. From flock cameras to door bell cameras to store cameras your pcture is taken hundreds of times daily. To just restrict glasses can be seen as a freedom of speech issue.
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo agoI'm guessing you're in the US; in the UK, door bell cameras are only legally allowed to film your own property.
- senordevnyc 2mo agoAren’t they generally facing out? How do you avoid capturing the street or neighbor’s house in the camera view?
- oneeyedpigeon 2mo agoI assume you can adjust the angles so that they only cover your property.
- dgellow 2mo agoBut what part of that has anything to do with free speech? What is the expression that is restricted?
- threethirtytwo 2mo agofreedom of press. It has to do with freedom of speech, because recording a speech is the counterpart to that. Should I be able to have the freedom to threaten someone with my speech but then have the ability to censor a recording of that? Sounds absurd only because you don't understand.
- dgellow 2mo agoOr I have a completely point of view. I’m pretty sure I understand your point and still find it nonsensical
- threethirtytwo 2mo agoWell then what can I say? I show you the logical connection: 1 + 1 = 2, and you still find it nonsensical then the only conclusion is: you are illogical.
- nemomarx 2mo agoI think of this like the camera shutter sound laws in Japan. We could easily regulate that the cameras must have visible indicators that they're recording, and ideally they should be required to be visually distinct from a normal pair of sunglasses in some way. Same for phones too while we're at it.
- dgellow 2mo agoYou can disable the LED at the hardware level
- john_strinlai 2mo agofreedom of speech != freedom to surreptitiously record
- threethirtytwo 2mo agoIt does to me. What if someone threatens to bomb the statue of liberty. You have the freedom to say that, but the cost is people have the freedom to listen and record. The freedom to record affectively tempers freedom of speech and stops people from using the former freedom excessively.
- gamblor956 2mo agoIf someone threatens to kill you and you wiretap it as evidence... that evidence is dismissible in court even after said subject (you) was found dead. That's not how the law works in the U.S. or most of Europe. A recording of the defendant threatening to kill the victim is admissible as evidence, especially if the victim winds up dead shortly thereafter. For example, see https://www.thebulldog.law/california-penal-code-633-5-the-victim-recording-exception-and-your-defense-rights https://www.thebulldog.law/california-penal-code-633-5-the-v...
- threethirtytwo 2mo agoMaybe they make exceptions for murder, but in general, wiretapped evidence is dismissible.
- gamblor956 2mo agoCA make exceptions for most violent crimes (including kidnapping) and extortion and blackmail. Also, any statement in a public area or outdoors is generally admissible (it becomes the burden of the counterparty to show that an expectation of privacy would arise). And importantly, these exceptions are only required in two-party-consent jurisdictions, of which there are only about a dozen. The remaining states are one-party consent. Most of Europe is one-party consent.
- petsfed 2mo ago>Women just need to deal with it. Assume that whenever you're in a public place, ALL your actions are PUBLIC. A women (and men) should dress and talk in a way conducive to the public arena. People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. If you consider "being polite to a customer at a coffee shop" as an invitation to any of the above, then I guess you can claim that its solely the victim's responsibility to prevent this sort of thing. But I ask, what is the victim's recourse if they legit do not want to be filmed and broadcast? Just stay home? Are we seriously going to give third-tier facebook-live streamers that much power? I feel like "if asked, don't monetize content containing others, if the content only occurred because of the recorder's actions". Like, yes, if you're in public, you can be filmed, sure. But if I ask you not to film me, and then you make money off a recording of just me saying "don't film me", that feels less like free speech, and more like monetizing actionable harassment.
- threethirtytwo 2mo agoIs that really a big deal? Someone who monetizes me saying don’t film me?
- petsfed 2mo agoDepends on how many times you get rape and/or death threats from unhinged audience members who went to surprising and horrifying lengths to figure out your identity. Obviously, we cannot wholly bar these jack wagons from going out and finding the exact edge of “harassment worth pursuing legal action over”. But we can lower the cost of pursuing legal action, and raise the cost of defending against such action. That’s all I’m proposing.
- Mawr 2mo ago> People have been the subject of stalking, harassment, rape irrespective of how they dress for ages. Flatly untrue. Can you get harassed regardless of anything in particular? Sure. Is the probability of harassment tied to various factors, like the way you dress? Absolutely yes.
- 2mo ago