Post
> Women leaving the beach, going into a shop, or simply standing outside are now being approached by men usually wearing Meta's Ray-Bans, the company's "smart" or "AI" glasses, often in order to film the women's responses to casual questions or pick-up lines without their knowledge or consent.
Perhaps it is time to simply ban them from public.
Whether I'm talking about spy glasses or men, you decide...
@neil There has to be a line somewhere between no expectation of privacy in a public place and.. this..
Obviously eventually most private places will ban them that haven't already.. pity, though, I'd have loved some glasses that reminded me of the names of people and where I met them before, or gave me live directions to places.. but they've been spoiled already by idiots.
‘Andrew Bosworth, Meta's chief technology officer, was asked on Instagram two weeks ago about "the stigma around people wearing smart glasses every day"
He responded, external by saying that the sheer number of Meta Ray-Bans sold "suggest that these are widely accepted".’
‘Widely accepted’ by whom? People who don’t know they’re being filmed cannot give informed consent. Have these tech bros ever been subject to a research ethics committee? Legislation is lagging
@neil on a side note: it's also time to boycott ray bans. Fuck the nazi collaborators
Influencer dudes who do cringe pickup artist bullshit should be shot off the face of the earth
Or you could just knock them off and stamp on them by mistake.
@neil I like men and would never ban them from public. Glasses though- the problem is distinguishing malicious antisocial use cases from legitimate adaptive technology use cases which can help the disabled navigate the world.
I am on the fence about someone using mobile spyware tech as adaptive technology to simultaneously violate the privacy of those around them and make their own experience of the world safer and more effective. It's a shitty sort of equation.
regarding: "Perhaps it is time to simply ban them from public.
Whether I'm talking about spy glasses or men, you decide"
why not both?
@neil i haven't actually seen a pair of these in the wild yet, but i imagine open mockery, finger pointing, and laughing at them to be the only acceptable response....
we all collectively laughed google glass out of existence, let's do the same for this garbage!
@neil this is gonna get a lot of dorky guys punched in the face just because their glasses are old and dorky.
Agree, I cannot understand how these are legal.
@neil As much as I dislike most big tech companies and tech bros, I dislike Meta and Zuckerberg by far the most. I hope something terrible happens to both.
@neil no surprise more invasion
@neil I understand these glasses are excellent for people living with particular disabilities.
@annehargreaves It is such a shame that a person with those needs has to share so much of their personal data with Meta. There must be a better way.
@neil Yes indeed.
Handing wads of cash to the many disabled designers and programmers would sort out the issue of expensive and privacy invading tech as a substitute for purpose-built accessibility tools. It would also be better than “disability dongles” from design schools.
@neil better to ban both.
we're going to need cis hetero men to start going up to these guys and interrupting them. "Hey, nice glasses. Can I try them on? No? Why not? What's wrong? C'mon, man, lemme try on your glasses." Reach for them. Make their video'ing of women*, girls* and children (yeah... boys are also going to be victims of these kinds of sleazebags) uncomfortable, embarrassing, impossible. They will not respect anyone else. It is time to step up.
@neil I have already seen pubs with a ban sign.
@neil
I prefer to imagine you're talking about the glasses. I wouldn't be happy either if an unknown woman filmed me. It's not a question of gender but of privacy.
@Artilaina Do you have anything to suggest that women are using these to film men?
My suspicion is that this is another example of misogynistic abuse, and that ignoring gender is mere deflection.
@neil
I don't need to wait until someone films me to say that I don't fancy being filmed.
Each person's reasons for secretly filming another may be sexism, misogyny or even bullying, but that doesn't change the fact that it affects people's privacy. It's not the motives that are judged, but the consequences. And in this case, it is the invasion of privacy that the use of this device represents.
The men doing the filming are definitely interfering with the rights of the women, yes.
@neil
Correct. And men who film other men interfere with those men's rights. And women who film other men interfere with those men's rights. And women who film other women interfere with those women's rights.
@Artilaina I am struggling to understand your motivation. This harassment appears to be very much gendered: men filming women.
Yet you seem to want to ignore, or at least sideline, that, and I can't work out *why*?
@neil
Filming someone without their consent is wrong. 'Banning' only one part of the population from doing so, simply because the number of offenders is higher, does not solve the problem: the invasion of privacy.
Would you agree with restricting a particular ethnic group because, statistically, it commits more theft? Theft is theft, regardless of who commits it.
Well, this is the same thing.
@neil
"Whether I'm talking about spy glasses or men, you decide..."
This sucks
@neil No. Toss me out an airlock.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
