Posted on 12/07/2025 6:22:20 AM PST by Governor Dinwiddie
Over a decade ago, Google showed off a pair of smart spectacles called Google Glass, sparking a major ethical debate over wearables being used to covertly film people without their permission.
At the time, the outrage was enshrined by the derogatory neologism “glasshole,” meaning a Google Glass wearer who was accused of having little regard for the privacy of those around them.
A seeming eternity later, Meta has attempted to revive the idea with its Ray-Ban Meta glasses. While it’s arguably a significant technological leap over Google’s early forays, the debate has seemingly remained the same.
Case in point, as Daily Dot reports, a New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses.
(Excerpt) Read more at futurism.com ...
That poor woman, who was likely just trying to go home.
And we are expected to embrace “mass transit”, just when the masses no longer have a common rule of social conduct.
This time it was a dweeby white guy (often early adopters of expensive tech). What happens when it is a “Nation of Islam” type or a recently re-released convict off his meds?
Oh, and the term for “female hero” is heroine.
I really hate this brave new world where one is constantly under surveillance, traffic cameras, door bells, cell phones, Ray Bans, store security, parking lots, dash cams, one's own home appliances..it's a simmering nightmare.
The woman did not break the law?
considering it was New Yawk, on a train, makes it debatable I suppose.
He does have the right to sue her for destroying his property
Is she aware she is videotaped just about everywhere she goes today in that city?
In public means just that.
In public.
No expectation of privacy other than what you wear or the tint of your car windows.
I will not use cell phone “filmers”, or the telophoto lensmen, pencil/oil Picasso’s at the beach, or the cameras EVERYWHERE owned by the people, govt and private stores...but they do demonstrate settled current practice that have been long litigated into legitimacy.
Myself, I just googled how much these wunder-glasses are......and then touch mine at peril. :->
Meta is not serious about testing their glasses if a white woman is unafraid to snatch a white guy’s pair from him. There are folks who, while wearing them, no sane person would try to grab.
It is rude to film people in public; there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
Agreed. And you beat me to it.
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his
hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass – a idiot” — Charles Dickens
Exactly. In public Ill just assume I am always being surveilled. Seriously , this lady should pay for his property.
Being filmed is one thing. Being filmed and expecting the filmer will then tell AI to remove your clothes is another thing.
Doesn’t matter. We may not like it. We may despise it. However, she assaulted the man. He is protected for filming in public.
On Patriot's Day earlier this year, I went to a special re-enactment at the famous North Bridge in Concord, MA, and I was completely surrounded by the worst kind of Leftists there to protest, the people who are part of "Indivisible", the "No Kings" people. They even asked me to move my chair so they could fit more of their people in, and I refused. (I started a thread on this to describe it: Encounter with Leftists at The 250 Year Anniversary of April 19, 1775 in Concord at The Old North Bridge (VANITY)
I had one of them grab my phone as I was recording their "interview" with a reporter, as she demanded I stop recording it. I refused. Public Domain.
This is actually how close she got to my phone, not blown up: 
Sure. It may have been rude to film them, but I wanted to save their lunacy for others to see.
This is true; however, if a person's image or likeness is used for commercial gain or profit, case law varies widely from state to state and from case to case.
If for example, I'm making a documentary about the subway system and am speaking to the camera while a person is walking by in the background that happens to be recorded, that person probably has no claim against me even if the documentary is widely successful and I make millions from it.
If, one the other hand, I surreptitiously record somebody on the subway picking their nose and eating it, post it to youtube and it goes viral earning me money, that person probably has a fair case that I exploited their specific image and likeness for monetary gain.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are out in public. ie anybody can film you or anybody else and they do not require your permission.
You do not have and expectation of privacy against photography while walking around in public.
This is very old law, established when mobile photography came along.
You may not like it, and you are welcome to lobby legislatures to change it.
But that’s the state of play in the U.S.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.