Dilara was on her lunch break in the London store where she works when a tall man walked up to her and said: “I swear red hair means you’ve just been heartbroken.”
The man continued the conversation as they both got in a lift, and he asked Dilara for her phone number.
What Dilara did not realise was that the man was secretly filming her on his smart glasses - which look like normal eyewear but have a tiny camera which can record video.
The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3m views. “I just wanted to cry,” Dilara, 21, told the BBC.
The man who filmed her, it turned out, had posted dozens of secretly filmed videos to TikTok, giving men tips on how to approach women.
Dilara also found out that her phone number was visible in the video. She then faced a wave of messages and calls.
Smart glasses and hidden cameras are two different products.
That being said, anyone can easily film you in public because anyone just assumes you’re just holding your phone up for something else.
Nope. If someone is doing that, I can easily notice it and know it’s a possibility and move/turn away. Just because I can judge that as probably not happening doesn’t mean a phone being held is equivalent to a human literally just wearing glasses with their head turned my way.
Are you really advocating for the position that I should give up the fight and just accept being filmed at all times in public?
If you’re in the US, the supreme court has said repeatedly we have no expectation of privacy in public. Anyone can operate as the press and the first amendment locks in their right specifically to film in publicly accessible places, and also to record government employees in the course of their duties based on current constitutioal law. It’s good for filming cops from a short distance away, but if you physically get in their way they can arrest you. And resisting detainment or arrest can apparently get you shot.
The flip side is yeah anyone can be recording you at any time in public. We can make laws to restrict that but the burden to pass constitutional scrutiny is high. Because of that, I’m not allowed to film into your home from outside, that was deemed an acceptable exception. If I could get the restrictions I’d like to see, it would be dismantling the surveillance state they’ve put up with Flock cameras etc. The government isn’t allowed to surveil citizens without a court order, so they simply contracted it out to private companies.
Agreed.
Assuming you’re in the US, you have no expectations of privacy in public, and it’s perfectly legal to film you in public. You do have to accept that, yes.
I’m sure a case can be made for someone approaching you and getting you to interact while filming secretly, and I hope she can sue him for damages. But simply being recorded in public is not something you can do anything about.
I am well aware of that supreme court decision. If hidden cameras mounted in glasses were a thing then, I highly doubt that ruling could’ve ever happened. Thanks for telling me what I have to accept though. Totally helpful and kind thing to do. Thanks also for the weird condescension. Exactly what the world needs right now.
I wasn’t condescending at all, and it didn’t seem you were aware, I was trying to be informative. What a weird response, honestly.
FYI since you pretend not to know: “you do have to accept [thing that didn’t exist at the time a ruling was made]” would read as being a smartass to most people
Gotcha, I didn’t realize it came off like that.
Again, was trying to be informative, because not accepting it implied not being aware, and we all have to accept it… or revolt and rewrite the rules…
I consider it hidden if it’s designed to look like a normal pair of glasses which the post states is the case.
Yes, it is a hidden camera in a pair of glasses, not smart glasses.
They were pointing out the difference. It would be like someone confusing a camera for a smartphone.
Not really. For the purposes of this conversation that doesn’t matter at all. The only things that matter here would be can the glasses film and can anyone tell that at a glance? I don’t care if the glasses can also do Google searches or some shit. That doesn’t necessarily violate my privacy. What violates my privacy is someone filming, without me even having a clue they might be.
It does, because the statement that people are taking issue with:
Is objectively correct and that was the only point they were trying to make. They were not claiming that it makes filming okay or that hidden cameras are not a problem.
The people are not responding to the actual words written by the person, they’re replying the the subtext that they feel was implied.
Me: makes point
Online weirdo: akshually, you’re wrong. Unrelated irrelevant details matter
You: yeah, ya idiot! It totally matters cuz we said so!
If you get so triggered when people point out that you’re wrong, maybe you should spend more time reading a book and less time trying to be insulting.
Your comments read like you’re an angsty teenager who is incapable of having a conversation like an adult.
Yours read like a libertarian from the early 2000s who is definitely okay with some heinous shit but won’t own up to it. Save your projecty reading recommendations for yourself.
Did I hit a nerve, princess?
In the US, that does not legally violate your privacy if you are in public.
There are many states that have 2-party consent laws regarding being recorded. In my jurisdiction, what the glasshole did might have been illegal. (I’m not a lawyer or judge)
Two party consent laws only apply in situations where they would have an expectation of privacy, as in not in public. Much of the whole first amendment auditing community is focused on educating people about this. State laws can’t trump constitutional precedent.
You get that there is a difference in “I can tell I’m being filmed” and not, right? You get that law is behind technology sometimes, right? Not sure why there’s an argument here.
You’re almost always being filmed in public in many places. The courts say it doesn’t matter whether or not you realize it, in the US.
So no, you don’t realize either point. Cool, you’re basically an intellectual brick.
The law is always behind technology. There’s no gotcha here. I was just talking about the standard the law has to pass to last, under current interpretation. Lots of laws get passed and then struck down as not meeting the standard of constitutional muster. Just because someone wants to ban something doesn’t mean the law will stand. Thanks for the degredation though.