- cross-posted to:
- glasses@piefed.social
- cross-posted to:
- glasses@piefed.social
To no one’s surprise, women and girls are disproportionately targeted, making image-based abuse not just a technology issue but a gendered form of violence rooted in misogyny and power. In fact, in Laura Bates’ book “The New Age of Sexism”, she cites research that says that of the 96% of deepfakes that are non-consensual sexually explicit images, 99% of those depict women. In fact, most of the apps, bots and websites that will create deepfake explicit images don’t even work on pictures of men.
Deepfakes can be used to humiliate, silence, intimidate, or punish women for speaking publicly, participating online, or simply existing in digital spaces.
In the UK, women have reported being filmed by men wearing smart glasses while being approached in public spaces, with recordings subsequently uploaded to social media attracting sexualised and other gross comments. Similar “pickup” content has emerged in the US, where men have used smart glasses to record interactions with women in airports, gyms, and other public spaces, often turning those encounters into viral online content.
Last year, an Auckland man used the Ray-Ban Smart Glasses to covertly record a sex worker without her consent while she was naked. The recording was detected only because the woman noticed him activating the device (by touching the side of the glasses). He pleaded guilty to attempting to make an intimate visual recording, but was discharged without conviction - to the dismay of the brothel owner.
This is particularly concerning because wearable devices are designed to blend into everyday life. A child may not recognise that a pair of ordinary-looking sunglasses contains a camera. They may not realise they are being recorded, and will have little ability to control what happens to that image/footage afterwards.
Consent becomes much harder to meaningfully give or refuse when recording devices are hidden inside objects that look completely ordinary.
Too often, we’re told that women and girls should simply be more careful, more alert, and more aware of their surroundings, remain vigilant, and constantly assess whether they are being recorded, instead of placing responsibility on those who design, deploy, and profit from technologies with foreseeable risks of misuse. The same is true for children and young people, who should not need levels of technological awareness beyond their developmental capacity simply to protect themselves from covert recording.
You must log in or # to comment.
I wish I could get these glasses without the camera. Playing music, scrolling stuff on my glasses on the train every morning etc. Sounds amazing.
Playing music, scrolling stuff on my glasses on the train every morning
Both of those things can be done with a phone or mp3 player and some headphones. These glasses don’t allow you view a social media feed, for example; you’re describing a different technology https://www.techlearning.com/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-meta-glasses
I don’t get how Google glass got laughed out of existence, but people are out there champing at the bit to buy Meta spyware glasses… It’s fucking insane.
The people excited to buy them aren’t the same people who were laughing before. These are the people who sit in a bus and wish they could just whip their dick out and start jerking off on someone, but who have the social awareness to know that would be frowned upon. Now they can record their day so they can revisit that train ride or few minutes on an elevator with a child, or kids gymnastics practice later on and pull their dick out for real this time.
I think the corporations have done a great job at normalizing surveillance and anti-privacy in the intervening years. In that time there’s also been a huge trend in marketing of getting celebs to do advertisements, which I’m guessing has some effectiveness seeing as it’s spread like wildfire in the last several years, and meta’s pervertware glasses have a dumbass-spokesperson in someone apparently famous named Kylie Jenner or something like that. I think your question is a good one; I think the answer has is how effective corporate manufacturing of consent has become (and the death of [mainstream] journalism; these days news outlets are just loudspeakers for corporations and politicians, especially in the tech space - critical thought need not apply)
We need to make tech moree difficult any way we can to drive the normies back out. Let them have their slop lol
I will never think ray bans in general are cool ever again.
I never did
You’re fashion sense was ahead of the times
We’re ready to break them, as a last resort.
We’re normalizing the courageous, and morally righteous, act of destroying Flock cameras.
Normalizing the destruction of pervert glasses seems like the next reasonable escalation in that fight.
Well that sucks. I don’t know if I can put enough force behind my fist without damaging the fragile nose and ocular bones underneath.
Don’t forget ring cameras!
But yeah, I won’t be upset if we start seeing pervert glasses getting slapped off pervert faces.
Forget the glasses.
Can’t wear glasses if you don’t have ears.
Oakley is far ahead of you.
Yeah, but perverts and sex criminals have been wearing Oakley’s for 30 years, so everyone already knows to be weary.
I don’t see how being tired is going to help. Maybe they should try being wary instead.
You’re not tired of sex offenders? You do you I guess…
It was a spelling thing.
deleted by creator
There’s a video going around on here where they tell you got to saw them off quietly
Your going to need something closer to a pruning blade to saw pervert glasses off quietly.
deleted by creator
Do they work when driving? Maybe a sunglass version? That would be handier than window mounted cameras and the like. Fuck 'em if all they’re for is privacy invasion. Enough of that shit is enough.
Do they work when driving?
Yes
Maybe a sunglass version?
You can get them in sunglasses yes, and prescription lenses. Basically any lens you want.
That I could see as a plus - maybe even base their entire ad campaign around it. Using these as creep show, or worse, should not be allowed. In order to "film"in public an apparent camera of some sort should be used so as to notify those being filmed.
That’s fair, isn’t it?
The issue is that regardless of how Meta markets this product, making it sleek and inconspicuous was the whole point. Meta glasses succeeded because they latched on the Wayfarer design which was already widespread and accepted.
Unfortunately being inconspicuous and fashionable also lends itself as means to use these to record covertly. Whatever Meta does to fix this, folks will find a way to work around and disable. The glass already has a flashing light to indicate that it’s recording; it’s not enough. Creeps are going to creep.
Maybe society just isn’t ready for “affordable” recording-capable wearables.
While it is true that nobody should have an expectation of privacy when in public, that doesn’t automatically grant you consent to purposely film people in public either.
Filming with these glasses discreetly in public removes that element of choice. People can’t consent or avoid something they can’t even see happening, like they could if the filming was done with an action cam or with a phone (held normally). Anyone who thinks that violating consent like that is okay is someone I wouldn’t want to hang around with.
And sure, maybe most people using these glasses are honest folks that would never film people without consent, or use them for any kind of malfeasance - but to that I’d say, why should everyone else have be at the mercy of your honesty?
That’s not a fair deal, and I doubt most of these glassholes would like to be in the reverse situation of being filmed going about their life without their consent.
You have no expectation of privacy in public, but that doesn’t legalize voyerism - https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
- (ii) The intimate areas of another person without that person’s knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place. (b) Voyeurism in the first degree is a class C felony.
That’s just it though, your consent is entering a public space.
People are recorded on dozens of cameras every day unbeknownst to them.
I don’t know exactly what the laws on this are in Canada, but where I’m from at least (Europe) that’s not entirely the case.
Anywhere with CCTV has to have a legible sign declaring the camera on the premises - and the CCTV camera has to be reasonably obvious. And the scope of what those cameras can be used for is limited by law.
Sure, in most circumstances you’ll have no choice but to walk through the range of at least some cameras and be recorded - but at least you have the opportunity to be aware of them and their purported purpose (even if most people won’t care to).
And that’s true for companies or private individuals looking to film public areas too. They have to have obvious signage nearby the area they’re recording, and their equipment has to be visible - to give people the opportunity to avoid the area being filmed.
Which is to say that both of those are different to being unknowingly recorded by a private individual with a discreet/hidden camera for a completely unknown purpose.
And no matter the legality, I’d still morally disagree with you. People should always have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to be recorded or not, and unilaterally deciding to take that away is gross.
Yes Europe’s laws on this are very different. Europens in the US often get upset when someone is filming on the street and haven’t asked anyone for consent. Sometimes they throw a fit about it - threaten violence, or call the police. But it’s perfectly legal and they can publish it even if you specifically say you don’t give consent. A lot of that content ends up getting tons of views, so people going up to the camera to say I don’t want to be on camera is kind of a running joke in the first amendment community. If they had just ignored the camera no one would have ever seen video of them.
While I understand for incidental filming, should being in public automatically give people consent to film you specifically? And in ways that are potentially a gross violation of your own personal space?
While I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for violence, I’m surprised that you’re perfectly okay with, and even justifying, the overriding of your own freedom of expression with someone else’s because of the space that you’re in.
In any region intent matters.
No, you cannot leer at women in public with a camera.
Not exactly. You can’t be victim of upskirt cameras because you wear a skirt in public.
And good luck to anyone wandering into a children’s park wearing these.
Not sure what you are saying? But in USA upskirt suits have been thrown out due to it being public space
Couldn’t find a conviction for the USA guy. As shit as it is, many of those have been thrown out due to no law preventing public photos.
gonna need to see evidence of this, got links?
This was top of google search for me https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/legally-weird/upskirting-photographer-gets-charges-dismissed-in-ore/
As much as I think this shouldn’t be true, it demonstrably is
So we’re supposed to develop hypervigilance? As someone with cptsd I’ve been doing that since I was in diapers. It’s incredibly taxing for your brain and takes years off your life. Terrible advice. Best thing we can do is publicly shame these people every time we see one. Call them pervert glasses, get mad, if it happens enough times they will get rid of them.
That’s what took them off the market last time. We can do it again.
I think we should all yell out “Pervert” at anyone we see wearing them in public.
Careful they might be into that
So? You can turn ecstasy into torture, all it takes is conditioning.
whoosh
What exactly do you think I whooshed at?
“they might be into that” is clearly a joke about perverts who already like that “torture”, there’s no re-conditioning for that and even if there was, it’s obviously not to be taken seriously
They were rather obviously continuing the joke…
that’s a possibility, but then it’s such a bad attempt that it doesn’t really register as one for me
Have you also been experiencing fertility difficulties? lol
Considering I chose not to have kids that’s a non issue for me.
Quick question though… the fuck does fertility have to do with ecstasy and torture?
Well it starts out as ecstasy but after years of trying it’s more akin to torture lol
And that has anything to do with my comment how?
They’re making a joke about how something enjoyable can become torture if one does it too much.
Did you really not see the connection or do you just not want people joking?
It was fun while these were just used for sports and actually interesting outdoor activities, it serves me really well while cycling and snowboarding. I gave away the original wayfarer version so my family can experiment with it for accessibility and now I have just the sports version, which hopefully it’s too dorky for these pick-up-artist idiots to start popularizing.
Guess I’ll have to go back to a go pro in my helmets like a Teletubby… and find a decent combination of open ear headphones and a microphone that works against the wind. sigh maybe if they made a camera-less version that would solve most of it
I used stuff like that for hands free tourist recordings. I never did anything inappropriate with them. Unless you count the time a cop glared at me for looking at them with a suspect cuffed to a bench…
Yeah that’s a good use case too — though I do remember seeing folks use it to take pictures of things you weren’t supposed to (like temples interiors).
The “covert recording” aspect of it is a big problem, but from the privacy standpoint I honestly think this is less worse than walking around with an Insta360 that is literally recording everything. At least for now the Insta360 is less problematic because it’s so bulky that it’s not as useful for perverts; but in terms of filming a bunch of people out and about without consent it’s worse.
Watch these creeps wearing garbage glasses make life so much harder for the folks with low vision.
I think a good way to combat this, and it should be done now, would be to convince pretty young girls to pull out their phones and record any glasshole they see, while belittling them. Post that shit on TikTok, and laugh. They’ll be in public areas, wherever crowds of young people gather.
If we wait too long, and let these become more commonplace the initiative will be lost.
Unfortunately that may just lead to more young girls getting attacked. The perverts who buy pervert glasses have the emotional intelligence of an angry warthog
So encourage ppl to commit crimes and harass people whenever they think someone is wearing them? That’s certainly not a recipe for disaster. Systemic public shaming and harassment at the sole discretion of the average idiot on the street? Because that always goes well…
You realize you’d be doing exactly to them what you’re criticizing them for doing to you?
they think someone is wearing them?
If you can’t distinguish between pervert glasses and normal glasses, you may really need a pair of prescription glasses
What crime is being suggested?
You realize you’d be doing exactly to them what you’re criticizing them for doing to you?
Yes, that’s the point. What would you hope to gain by removing the opportunity for proportional response?
The opportunity was already removed when it was defined as a criminal offense.
Back in 2016 I bought several ‘dumb’ camera sunglasses. Why? I was going to a spy themed nerd convention and I thought having those would fit the theme. I did use some myself when I went on vacation and used them a POV camera and hands free recording of the places and things I wanted recorded.
They were air-gapped. No Bluetooth or WiFi capability. You had to plug them in to get your stuff out. No cloud storage either. You put in a microSD card.
So I do believe they can have utility… But not in the way these people are using it. Not in the ‘always on always listening and always on the cloud’ bullshit.
For the time being and for quite a while, they’ll have thick frames. Computers, batteries, speakers, and cameras aren’t going to be affordably microscopic anytime soon.
If we start calling out anyone with thick frame glasses, soon people will stop wearing them, unless they’re pervert glasses. In a year or two virtually all thick frame glasses will be pervert glasses. They won’t be able to hide.
As someone who wanted to buy thick frames, i guess i will need to avoid them…
Also, your reasoning has a flaw: they are thick for now, it won’t take much for a company to make normal-looking ones
Uhh, designer here. My thick-framed glasses are part of the uniform… ☹️
deleted by creator
I see you have volunteered to demonstrate the problem with the public shaming approach already
So anyone who wears thick framed glasses in general gets attacked by the mob…great fucking solution.
“For the time being”… that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting and doesn’t address to core of rhe issue. What happens when it’s small enough it can’t be obviously seen. Maybe it becomes a contact lens, maybe it can fit on a thin bridge on the nose. The problem still remains to be addressed.
