Woman Hailed As a Hero For Smashing Man's Meta Smart Glasses On Subway (yahoo.com) 154
"Woman Hailed as Hero for Smashing Man's Meta Smart Glasses on Subway," reads the headline at Futurism:
As Daily Dot reports, a New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. "She just broke my Meta glasses," said the TikTok user, who goes by eth8n, in a video that has since garnered millions of views.
"You're going to be famous on the internet!" he shouted at her through the window after getting off the train. The accused woman, however, peered back at him completely unfazed, as if to say that he had it coming.
"I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at," he claimed in the caption of a followup video. "She was the only person annoyed..." But instead of coming to his support, the internet wholeheartedly rallied behind the alleged perpetrator, celebrating the woman as a folk hero — and perfectly highlighting how the public feels about gadgets like Meta's smart glasses.
"Good, people are tired of being filmed by strangers," one user commented.
"The fact that no one else on the train is defending him is telling," another wrote...
Others accused the man of fabricating details of the incident. "'People were crying laughing' — I've never heard a less plausible NYC subway story," one user wrote.
In a comment on TikTok, the man acknowledges he'd filmed her on the subway — it looks like he even zoomed in. The man says then her other options were "asking nicely to not post it or blur my face".
He also warns that she could get arrested for breaking his glasses if he "felt like it". (And if he sees her again.) "I filed a claim with the police and it's a misdemeanor charge." A subsequent video's captions describe him unboxing new Meta smartglasses "and I'm about to do my thing again... no crazy lady can stop me now."
I'm imagining being mugged — and then telling the mugger "You're going to be internet famous!" But maybe that just shows how easy it is to weaponize smartglasses and their potential for vast public exposure.
"You're going to be famous on the internet!" he shouted at her through the window after getting off the train. The accused woman, however, peered back at him completely unfazed, as if to say that he had it coming.
"I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at," he claimed in the caption of a followup video. "She was the only person annoyed..." But instead of coming to his support, the internet wholeheartedly rallied behind the alleged perpetrator, celebrating the woman as a folk hero — and perfectly highlighting how the public feels about gadgets like Meta's smart glasses.
"Good, people are tired of being filmed by strangers," one user commented.
"The fact that no one else on the train is defending him is telling," another wrote...
Others accused the man of fabricating details of the incident. "'People were crying laughing' — I've never heard a less plausible NYC subway story," one user wrote.
In a comment on TikTok, the man acknowledges he'd filmed her on the subway — it looks like he even zoomed in. The man says then her other options were "asking nicely to not post it or blur my face".
He also warns that she could get arrested for breaking his glasses if he "felt like it". (And if he sees her again.) "I filed a claim with the police and it's a misdemeanor charge." A subsequent video's captions describe him unboxing new Meta smartglasses "and I'm about to do my thing again... no crazy lady can stop me now."
I'm imagining being mugged — and then telling the mugger "You're going to be internet famous!" But maybe that just shows how easy it is to weaponize smartglasses and their potential for vast public exposure.
Good for her! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Then everyone will start using it as an excuse to attack other people. Especially the cops - they hate being filmed. They will claim it was "aggressive" and justified violence.
A guy called Graham Linehan was just convicted of smashing a girl's phone, when she filled an interaction where she asked him why he called her a "groomer" on twitter, and worse. It was the right judgement, he had no need to do it, and mere annoyance can't be enough or everyone will be smashing stuff they dislike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should understand what the police are doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My sympathies to the woman involved, as Linehan is a shitty person and no-one other than actual pedophiles deserves that kind of label (can I venture a guess that the woman involved was being accused of that because she felt suicidal children suffering from gender dysphoria should have access to psychiatrists, who in turn should be able to use mainstream psychiatric therapies for GD?), but I'm reluctant to say that ambushing someone with a camera and microphone isn't a legitimate occasion to have your devic
Re: (Score:2)
>Break the fucking cameras.
The problem with that is, it's legal to film i public in the US. I don't know about other countries, but you can use these smart glasses to film people in public in the US legally.
What you are advocating is just assault. Congratulations. You have not evolved past "violent criminal".
Re: Good for her! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the same in the US. You can't publish someone's photo (unless they are just part of the background) without getting a signed release.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's the same in the US. You can't publish someone's photo (unless they are just part of the background) without getting a signed release.
Nope. Not true. You can't use it commercially, but the definition of commercial use excludes a lot of things that you might think are commercial, e.g. any form of artwork, book covers, Facebook posting, etc.
This doesn't give you the right to record someone who has asked you not to record them, though, especially if there is audio and it is a two-party consent state. And if you are deliberately confronting someone in public who asks you not to record them, it could also run afoul of harassment laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that Linehan had spent months harassing her on Twitter, to which she didn't respond, and she was a child at the time... I can't see any justification.
Re: (Score:2)
Then everyone will start using it as an excuse to attack other people.
i won't. pinky swear!
Especially the cops - they hate being filmed. They will claim it was "aggressive" and justified violence.
nothing new. a while ago in democratic spain a law officer brutalized a journalist filming a protest and alleged he had attacked him with the camera, thousands of euros in professional gear which ofc somehow ended up totally smashed. the courts believed him because in spanish courts police testimony is usually considered proof. as you might expect this case isn't an exception at all, a common joke is about people attacking police with their faces. well, at least they don't shoot you aro
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a serious question of why people get so upset about glasses that record as opposed to cell phones, etc. I have a theory on it and that is that, despite all the emphasis on eye contact, humans actually find it really aggressive and threatening. Traditional camcorders, cameras, and taking cell phone video all either outright block the eyes or at least the eyeline. You are not staring at them, you are staring at your phone. I think that is, at least in part why devices like smart glasses make people m
Re:Good for her! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for her! (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's the point. It's understood everywhere that you can film people secretly, without their consent, using these glasses.
Secrecy is what changes the whole equation. Imagine a woman sitting next to a man on a subway. The man pulls a giant TV camera out from under his seat, and starts filming her. "Stop filming me," she says. "It's legal!" he replies. "Because it's a public place!"
The truth is, no one would try that TV camera stunt, because it's so clearly wrong. (Someone would call the train's security phone saying "There's some creep here filming women against their will...") But if you can film in secret with your Meta smartglasses...
Re: (Score:2)
Secrecy is what changes the whole equation. Imagine a woman sitting next to a man on a subway. The man pulls a giant TV camera out from under his seat, and starts filming her. "Stop filming me," she says. "It's legal!" he replies. "Because it's a public place!"
Hmm. I've been watching TV for most of my life. Based on thousands upon thousands of examples of people filming in public places, that absolutely, 100% happens a lot. There may be nuances like news programs trying to get releases for people they interview directly or focus on, but that's often after the fact and not really always done.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like you're making a huge assumption that people don't get upset will cell phone recording.
I'm not making that assumption though. Clearly people sometimes get upset about that also. I am just noting that it seems like the vitriol over these glasses seems to be a bit higher than over other recording devices, or at least it seems like people are classing them differently. Consider the fact that, currently, there are five replies and one flamebait moderation on my fairly modest post. I mean, reading my post, does it seem like flamebait? Nevertheless, it appears that the mere suggestion that people's
Re: (Score:3)
I like your theory though and there may be something to it. Eye to eye makes it feel more invasive.
My guess would be that you don't know if they are recording or not when it comes to smart glasses. All the other devices you mention, it can be assumed that when pointed at you, is very likely recording. I don't know much about these smart glasses and wouldn't have a clue what I should look for unless it was a blinking light from the glasses itself and even that is more inconspicuous compared to any of the dev
Re: (Score:2)
It's still creepy that some guy will sit there and record a woman/whatever they are attracted to/ and try to be secretive about it. It's even creepier with even a tiny bit of imagination of how things can and will be abused. Or, maybe they will just have them recording all the time. That's super creepy. As well.
Sure, it's creepy. It is pretty necessary for it to be legal though. There are a lot of very good reasons to allow recording people in public. The fact that it is legal is the only reason that, for example, police actions can be recorded in public. Even when it is legal, we still hear plenty of stories about police officers arresting people, assaulting them, stealing their property and destroying it, etc., etc. recording. Ultimately, the social good is largely inseparable from the social bad. Also, much of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but I think that would be an example of what I am talking about really. You were upset that their attention was constantly focused on you and it felt aggressive and unsettling. I think it is likely it would have been the same if they were simply staring directly at you, especially right at your eyes.
But who wants to go out to eat and have a camera pointed at them the whole time?
Well, that's the thing isn't it. The answer to that question is basically everyone. Restaurant, theater, retail store, bank, DMV, anywhere along the road in any public area, etc.; if you go out to eat, yo
Re: (Score:2)
humans actually find it really aggressive and threatening.
most animals do, it's a natural instinct. if something stares at you odds are it is thinking you're its next meal.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, absolutely. I am just speaking from the perspective of someone who spent the first couple of decades of his life with people trying to push how important eye contact was on me along with the idea that people find it unfriendly and unsettling if you don't do it. Clearly there's nuance to it, but if you don't naturally do it, people ignore the nuance and and extol its virtues. Studies done during Covid with the increase of video conferencing, etc. have demonstrated just how stressful the effect of having
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. He has no right to film her, he has no right to film on the subway in the first place. He certainly has no right to use her video (which he still does, it seems). And he absolutely no right to monetise her.
Unfortunately, the internet has created millions of jackasses out there broadcasting their poor behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like this guy was being obnoxious, glasses or not. It's not even clear that this woman intentionally broke his smart glasses, or knew they were smart glasses, or that the smart glasses had anything to do with the incident.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would this be a good challenge? The woman in this story was *not* trying to entrap this guy. He was actually being obnoxious.
If a woman is being obnoxious (like trying to promote her influencer show) and a guy breaks her smart glasses in a similar way, I'd be just as happy for the guy, as I am for this woman.
Re: Good for her! (Score:5, Informative)
Steve Mann apparatus was medical, nothing to do with Meta glasses which no one needs. And it was 12 years ago and nobody could corroborate any of his claims. Not saying he is a nutjob here, but he may have blown this thing way out of proportions.
Re: Good for her! (Score:2)
Since you clocked it as an opinion, the phrase, âoein my opinion,â isnâ(TM)t needed.
(That said, itâ(TM)s objectively true that no one needs these, as evidenced by the entirety of human history.)
Re: (Score:2)
everything about this case seems to be about opinion since no fact could actually be corroborated despite the involvement of several authorities and the existence of recording, apparently inconclusive. as it happens, your supposedly patronizing opinion on the opinion fight is the most irrelevant of all these opinions, except for the fun detail of your vehement all caps "YOUR OPINION".
Re: Good for her! (Score:5, Informative)
I found an article explaining that incident [nbcnews.com], but it doesn't get into what the guy's supposed medical need is for wearing his camera glasses. So, I went and did the needful - I asked ChatGPT:
Over decades of use, his “visual system” has adapted around the EyeTap: he claims that now he cannot see correctly without it
His dependance on the glasses was self-inflicted, which makes him more along the lines of people who put those Temu "Service Dog" vests on their pets, rather than someone with a genuine disability.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet he had an actual Doctor's note. According to the article, after he showed the note to an employee he was allowed to order and stay. Then another employee came out and tried to pull them off his head (they were permanently attached). Though the main damage occurred when he pissed himself outside of the McDonalds. He was heading to the toilet when he was attacked.
Most please don't allow audio recording either, yet no one goes around trying to rip out deaf people's occular implants or other hearing aid
Re: Good for her! (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of people have self-inflected hearing loss.
Usually not resulting from wearing a homebrew hearing aid that you cranked to 11 until it damaged your hearing, though. That's in essence what that guy did to himself.
No, it doesn't excuse the behavior at the McDonald's, but people who fake their disability or intentionally injure themselves for sympathy are making things worse for those who are truly disabled.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
bien sure, they're salopes.
History repeating itself: Google Glass (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I only knew two people who wore Google Glasses, and honestly - they tended to frequently be assholes even before they got the glasses. The addition of the Google Glasses just exacerbated their personality issues.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing, someone who believes their day-to-day life is so fascinating that they need to be able to record video at any given moment, probably has a severe case of main character syndrome.
So yeah, "asshole glasses" definitely fits.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the thing, someone who believes their day-to-day life is so fascinating that they need to be able to record video at any given moment, probably has a severe case of main character syndrome.
So yeah, "asshole glasses" definitely fits.
Maybe, but only if you assume that the intent is to share that video with others or whatever.
On the flip side, I can think of a lot of useful reasons to do so, mostly involving use of large amounts of AI to go back and process the data. Imagine losing something and being able to ask, "Where is this," and getting an answer about where you left it. Imagine being able to say, "Was [insert person] part of the conversation where I said [insert subject]" and getting an answer. The potential impact of always-on
Filming people getting CPR (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The clear counterargument to that though, in the case of face mounted recording devices, is that they don't force a choice between helping/calling police or filming. True, that should not be a real dilemma, the obvious choice should be to help. The thing is, that problem in crowds of no-one stepping forward to help does not exist purely because of people recording. There are lots of reasons people don't put themselves forward in situations like that. One of them is the assumption that someone else will be a
Re: (Score:3)
I think there are plenty of people who want to help, in principle. People also tend to get overwhelmed in a crisis situation and suffer extreme performance anxiety. It's not like we don't know that there are biological underpinnings for this. Consider the effects of epinephrine/adrenaline. It boosts some senses, making you more alert to danger while dulling sensations of physical pain, etc., priming you for fight or flight. However, it also compromises your higher cognitive abilities, memory, etc. PET scans
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta be honest, every time someone collapses and is in distress, there are always a bunch of people who pull out their phones and start recording.
Schadenfreude is one of the oldest forms of entertainment. Turn on the 11 o'clock news and it's car crashes, plane crashes, fires, crime, corruption, and death. It doesn't make it right, but it's just human nature to gawk at someone else's misfortune.
Re: (Score:2)
Schadenfreude is not just "gawking" at someone else's misfortune. It's taking pleasure in it.
Making a video recording of someone else's misfortune could be schadenfreude but not necessarily. It could arise from a well-placed desire to keep a record of the situation for whatever reason. Think George Floyd, plane crash, ICE raid, and so on. Videos of such events help to report and analyze them later.
Or it could just be an attempt by spectators to cope with a bad situation at arms length. Not particularly help
Re: (Score:2)
Making a video recording of someone else's misfortune could be schadenfreude but not necessarily.
Okay, call it schadenfreude by proxy if you want. The idea that people will record things they assume others might want to view for the entertainment value.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a video recording of someone else's misfortune could be schadenfreude but not necessarily.
Okay, call it schadenfreude by proxy if you want. The idea that people will record things they assume others might want to view for the entertainment value.
False choice. It could be schadenfreude by or not by proxy. But there are other options. That was the point of my post.
Re: (Score:2)
False choice. It could be schadenfreude by or not by proxy. But there are other options. That was the point of my post.
Yes, but in the OP's example of someone collapsing because of a medical condition, that's generally not something people are motivated to record by a thought process along the lines of "I should document this in case it proves to be important to one of the involved parties." Usually, it really is because they're hoping it will score them some fake internet points when they post it on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in the OP's example of someone collapsing because of a medical condition, that's generally not something people are motivated to record by a thought process along the lines of "I should document this in case it proves to be important to one of the involved parties." Usually, it really is because they're hoping it will score them some fake internet points when they post it on social media.
Then it's not schadenfreude. Profiting from someone else's misfortune, even trivially, is not the same as enjoying it.
And those who watch the video are not necessarily engaging in schadenfreude. They could have a fascination or concern about someone's misfortune without actually enjoying it.
In short, schadenfreude is not the only reason people view the misfortune of others. Quite likely not even the primary reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly pulling out your phone and recording is the proper thing to do. I've been in two accidents now and both times the other party changed their story either when the cops showed up or when they talked to their insurance. The first case had my dashcam prove me right. In the second case a relative was deemed at fault when the other party lied after the fact and there was no evidence to back anything up. Had we been recording, we would have gotten their admission on record that they weren't paying atte
Re: (Score:3)
I should add I slightly changed my story too when the cops showed up. If you're in an accident, don't argue with the other parties. Just dismissively acknowledge or play dumb with whatever they say in order to keep heads cooler. After other people are there to keep order and you're talking out of earshot, then you can safely disagree with the other person's story. Winning a random argument in the street means nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
It is. It's legal because it's OK. You're in public, people might catch you on camera. You can find plenty of videos of Karens on Youtube harassing people who are merely filming the area the Karen occupies and they grab at the camera/phone and attempt to destroy or steal it if they get ahold of it. This is illegal and it should be illegal and nobody should accept it; the
Re:Filming people getting CPR (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if it isn't technically legal harassement I would say that it is harassing behavior, immoral and should be defended against.
I don't think many people are of the opinion that everything illegal is strictly off limits and everything that is legal is 100% permissable. Most people belive the laws are flawed to some degree and technology runs much faster than the lawmakers and courts can handle. Some cynical people even think the lawmakers and courts aren't perfect and sometimes write laws to empower parties other than the american citizen.
In most parts of the US it is legal to place a camera looking exclusively into your neighbors backyard and into their bedroom windows. Should it be legal? I doubt it. Mass surveillance camera companies are able to track our movements and sell that data to datebrokers, because there are enormous loopholes in the Privacy Act of 1974. Should it be legal for them to do that? It is legal for people to make and publish deepfakes of you as long as the deepfakes are not "intimate" in nature. Should it be legal to do that? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Even if it isn't technically legal harassement I would say that it is harassing behavior, immoral and should be defended against.
We do that by changing laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It is. It's legal because it's OK.
No, it's legal because we're not a police state. (There's another "f" word I can't use because of recent misuse I don't want to drag into this discussion.) This is a norm violation, and norms are what society runs on. We only criminalize norm violations when they are enforceable and worth the trouble for the court system. Sexism is legal except when discriminatory, but very much not okay. Littering on private property is legal but not okay. Until recently, revenge porn. Taking a shit in a store's toilet and
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said "racism", because society treats the sexes differently and making a value judgment on that is a can of worms I don't want to open.
Re: (Score:2)
This is illegal and it should be illegal and nobody should accept it; these people are bullies and thugs and should be treated as such.
Exactly. If it was an accident then it's the extent cost of replacing the item. However intentionally destroying someone's property like that is a clear case of malicious damage and has penalties of several years jail. It's not the damage, it's the malicious intent that is the more serious crime.
Camera's are everywhere now. Do I like it, No, is it reality, Yes. Always carry chapstick.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta be honest, every time someone collapses and is in distress, there are always a bunch of people who pull out their phones and start recording. As a first responder, it's just so gross that someone would think to start recording instead of pitching in or calling 911. Seriously, you may need to bare their chest to apply an AED or do compressions. It's quite embarrassing for the casualty for a lot of reasons. Give people some privacy. They're fellow human beings. We need to stop pretending like it's perfectly OK to film strangers in public. Legal? Sure. Should you be doing it? 9 times out of 10, no.
Thank you for saying that. I'm now curious. Has anyone ever faced a civil or even criminal suit for perhaps not merely standing by, but also filming and posting someone's struggle or untimely demise?
Sure, no one is usually legally obligated to help, but this is a bit more dark in nature. Immediate family members filing suit come to mind, naturally based on plenty of damning video evidence from Gen Narcissist who set a snuff film ablaze in viral infamy to roast someones last moments of existence over the
Re: (Score:3)
"Has anyone ever faced a civil or even criminal suit for perhaps not merely standing by, but also filming and posting someone's struggle or untimely demise?"
I thought I had an answer for the "standing by" part, with the Kitty Genovese murder in 1964, a case that had influence for decades. While the killer was arrested and executed, no-one else was arrested, though. I thought that there had actually been a judicial ruling about a citizens responsibility in such events, but if there is, it's not from this. He
Re:Filming people getting CPR (Score:5, Interesting)
We need to stop pretending like it's perfectly OK to film strangers in public. Legal? Sure. Should you be doing it? 9 times out of 10, no.
It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.
I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.
That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.
Social Norms (Score:4, Insightful)
Say a guy had a camera out and was snapping shots and taking video on the subway of everyone. Would that be considered acceptable?
So the camera is in a headset. How is that different?
Re:Social Norms (Score:5, Insightful)
Say a guy had a camera out and was snapping shots and taking video on the subway of everyone. Would that be considered acceptable?
No, it would piss off a lot of the other passengers - even though it is legal behavior.
Talk to someone who does street photography about their confrontations sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been done before, taking pictures on the subway, and those were done by photographers or people trying to get into photography. Such pictures are easily found by doing a simple search.
It's about perception. When someone is wearing these glasses they are looking at you with their eyes. When someone is taking a photograph, the camera is between you and them. It's obvious what the person is doing.
Social Norms, Need Manners. (Score:2)
Say a guy had a camera out and was snapping shots and taking video on the subway of everyone. Would that be considered acceptable?
So the camera is in a headset. How is that different?
First make all the hypocrites riding a public subway grasp the fact they're all armed with cellular-powered privacy-robbing technology in their smartphone equipped with at least three cameras facing multiple directions and a fucking 3D microphone array.
And in any given moment in a public space involving any sizeable group of humans, at least 10% of them are taking selfies, vlogging, or making some kind of recording. Usually to post online. It's the world we live in.
As far as "acceptable", define that aft
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that there are many more options than you make it out to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Fools keep making more things into felony crimes thinking it's being tough on crime.
Is It Legal? (Score:3)
We only have one side of the story here. That opens him up to the privacy tort false light if he was harassing her and she was justified in breaking them. We don't know how they broke. Maybe she made a fake-out lunge at him and he knocked them off his face. Probably not but who knows? The guy appears unwilling to provide complete details of what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I should have written that post more inquisitively than declarative as I was hoping someone who knew more would reply. I was looking up how legal it is for commercial recording in public (you need model release forms when that person's image is being used to convey something) and found the false light thing. I hadn't heard of it before.
Re: (Score:3)
No. That's the answer. Even with just one side of the story no it wasn't legal... well more of a civil case. People may not like it, but property destruction is generally not looked on favourable by the courts simply because someone didn't like something.
Maybe she made a fake-out lunge at him and he knocked them off his face.
Actually... still illegal... well... more of a civil case.
So someone may have been recording on the subway (Score:5, Funny)
and if you take offense to that you're entitled to destroy their property?
Well, it is New York City.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and if you take offense to that you're entitled to destroy their property?
Well, it is New York City.
At least she didn't set him on fire I guess ...
Relevant bit of escapism (Score:2)
Big fat frames and pissy attitudes makes people want to punch the wearer in the face just out of principle.
Add video recording to the obnoxiously fat glasses and now you just wanna punch the wearer out for lack of common decency.
Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Fishing for attention (Score:4, Insightful)
These kind of people, usually self-proclaimed star influencers, are nothing more than narcissistic, aspiring divas who are fishing for attention and likes while thinking they are being funny.
No, you're not funny. No, your pranks are not welcome. No, you're never going to be famous. And if you get in my face, into my private space and make me feel uncomfortable, be ready to see a close-up of my knuckles. Regardless of what the law says.
Re: (Score:3)
I think we were had. According to a previous story, "rage bait" is *the* term of 2025.
If this guy is as popular at monetization as he thinks he is, expect him to make this a regular thing.
10 Buy pair of sunglasses
20 Have a pretty young woman snap them in half on camera
30 GOTO 10
Re: Fishing for attention (Score:2)
Entirely plausible theory, yeah. I completely forgot about the Word of the Year. It wouldn't that far off from what I said, though. Attention whores one way or another. Anything for a reaction.
regulate for profit tik toks like any other film (Score:4, Interesting)
since he is doing these as a business, they're monetized... do filming bylaws/regulations kick in?... where you need city permits, if the person speaks then you need to have their signed authorization to use the clip (even if they're a bystander that happens to speak in it).... not seeing how him taping for his short films (and they are short films) is any different from shooting a film if you're a studio...
No one else defending him... (Score:2)
I'm not sure if whomever wrote that knows people in general but no one defends people on a subway. At best people will just watch. Or worse, film it. People are desperate to see action play out.
However fucking horrible: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u... [nbcnews.com]
I’m curious about the laws (Score:3)
This is a problem that might fix itself, if all the glassholes v2.0 wind up in court repeatedly.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if people monetize your likeness without consent and they do it by capturing your likeness in a public space they can just do it without paying you a dime. Think of all the paparazzi whose job is taking photos of celebrities who hate them in public.
Time to invent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great movie.
Keanu's best performance and he never appeared on camera! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Never saw the movie; I'll have to see it!
I just remember having my mind blown by the novel :)
"people are tired of being filmed by strangers" (Score:2, Insightful)
The fuck they are. Every single video on TikTok is a stranger being recorded by a phone. Nobody cares. But *glasses* are used instead of a phone and suddenly they're up in arms?
don't get it (Score:2)
I've seen Meta's glasses, and they look close enough to normal Ray Bans that you might not give them a second look. What was this guy doing to evoke such ire? I mean they look like normal eye glasses, not something unusual that would stand out like Google Glass.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably stand out a lot if you're creeping some chic on the subway.
She's gonna notice you're staring, when she sees the camera she's gonna get even more pissed.
It's not like having glasses is permission to creep.
Well, in Europe he could have gotten arrested (Score:3)
And in Germany, this may be a "covert surveillance device", which is even illegal to own.
Re: (Score:2)
That is because you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'll allow it (Score:2)
>"I was making a funny noise people were honestly crying laughing at," he claimed in the caption of a followup video.
The tiktok loser is lucky someone didn't rip out his vocal cords. His parents should be embarrassed and lambasted for raising a loser.
Trigger word to demonetize (Score:3)
What if when you say the word "demonitize" a few times in quick succession, the video gets flagged? So if you don't want to be in the video you can just keep saying "demonitize demonitize demonitize". Return the power of being a nuisance back to the people.
I side with the woman. (Score:2)
It was only a short while ago, in the late 1990's, that pulling out a camera and pointing around in a bar would likely end with you getting into a very unpleasant situation with the other customers and likely a battering if you did not take heed. I have seen it happen. I recall being sternly warned about using my camera in the crowd at an open air music festival. It always amazed me how quickly and easily everyone gave up such notions of privacy when the world suddenly got flooded with cameras in phones and
So she is known? (Score:2)
Then it should be easy to sue her to pay for new Meta Smart glasses. No matter how much she's hailed, the man can get new glasses and laugh about her.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like the counter-suit for inflicting emotional duress would have a possible higher cap, though.
Since his own duress, if any, was used to commercial advantage it would be hard for him to argue it as a financial harm, a necessary feature of a tort.
Conflicted... (Score:2)
Heroes don't always wear capes (Score:2)
Re: Not thinking things through (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're an average looking guy, never had an actual job in your life and you make meme-videos.
and most of us probably just contributed to his meme business.
Women drive to avoid sleazebag jerks like you on the subway.
i guess sleazebag jerks like this are among the least frequent problems women can expect on the subway.
Re: (Score:3)