this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
119 points (95.4% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3520 readers
353 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes/pics of text

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A New York subway rider has accused a woman of breaking his Meta smart glasses. She was later hailed as a hero.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Buffy@libretechni.ca 36 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Yeah I understand hating the Meta glasses, but what, are we going to destroy every camera we find in the wild? This is a small piece of a larger problem and I'm just not sure assaulting a stranger on the subway is the way to go about it.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 2 days ago (5 children)

are we going to destroy every camera we find in the wild?

Yes.

[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 23 points 2 days ago

Yeah my first thought was "you know what? Now that you mention it, I'd be more than happy with that. I didn't even think of it as an option but yeah, sure, let's give it a go"

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 12 points 1 day ago

I'm all for this but we should start with all of the cameras owned by businesses and the government. If anyone at all should be allowed to record in public it is we the people.

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Start with your phone then.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If I could get a phone without one I would.

I don't recall ever having used the damn thing, all it does is stick out like a wart making the phone unsightly and unnecessarily thick.

And the other, even more useless one is just poking an extremely irritating hole on the screen.

They're probably scratched beyond any usability anyway, since for some reason cases and screen protectors refuse to cover them.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

If you want a phone without camera, wifi or audio, just install Linux on it /s

[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Being stuck inside a system does not make one a hypocrite to criticize it from within the system. Nor would one act of self immolation achieve anything but dying pointlessly in a fire. The prison guards will merely shovel your remains into a bucket. People like you will continue to goad other miserable prisoners into more pointless acts of self destruction for short term personal gratification.

We're so deep into the technological surveillance state that people like you can't even see that there was once a world outside these prison walls. You've accepted your fate. Maybe you we're born into it. Maybe it's been so long that you've forgotten it's not normal to have all this forced upon us. In this world where surveillance state technology is required, smartphones are now integrated into critical needs of daily life. From government to financial institutions to workplace. You cannot live without it short of going inawoods Ted K style. At which point the prison guards are likely to descend upon your log cabin with the full military force of the state and corporate apparatus.

Ultimately these acts of immolation achieve nothing against the system itself but demonstrate the futility that we're all stuck inside a prison. Seems like you thought you had a really clever retort there. You don't. It's you who are the fool.

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That’s not “in the wild”. Your camera phone on the other hand…

[–] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The second you touch someone else’s you better believe they are going for yours.

If you think that someone else’s is in the wild, but yours isn’t, you are just a useless hypocrite.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

Skibidi are the good guys?

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

are we going to destroy every camera we find in the wild

If it is from a mega corp that is known for spying on people: absolutely

They have no right for cameras in public.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They have no right for cameras in public.

I'm pretty sure they do. That comes along with the word "public". This sounds like ICE telling observers to stop filming.

Collecting the footage from thousands of cameras and turning it into a giant surveillance system to track everyone is a different matter, and that's what needs to be made illegal.

[–] uncouple9831@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

They're the same picture

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

I would be perfectly fine with filming in public being illegal without concent with the expection of public officials

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago

When Google Glass was a thing people with assistive vision technologies were being attacked too.

[–] 1D10@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I find it interesting that we only know of this because someone recorded the guy.

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 days ago

He recorded himself after the incident.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Every little bit helps! If we all pitch in, many hands make light work!

[–] Buffy@libretechni.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Very true, this is why we need people advocating for privacy law. I think those responding don't understand I'm on their side, I'm just approaching it from a constructive point of view.

[–] uncouple9831@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

Is that an option? If so, yes

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

How many flock cameras and ring cameras did she pass that day lol (has NYC banned them?)

[–] pipi1234@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are you for real? Or just a Meta bot? Can't you see the difference between a camera in a phone, that is more or less obvious when pointed to film a person, and a camera mounted in glasses? For real?

Or are you suggesting that if we have let phones with cameras be, we should tolerate another escalation in the fight against privacy?

Please let me know which is it?! Im really curious.

[–] Buffy@libretechni.ca -1 points 1 day ago

You're missing the point entirely.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 25 points 2 days ago

Love to see it.

[–] Ascrod@midwest.social 16 points 1 day ago

Some cashier at McDonalds will probably rat her out Luigi-style.

[–] Maeve@midwest.social 16 points 2 days ago
[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

“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.

Dude tried turning a commuter train into a content factory. Fuck that. Hire participants. Pay people.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

That's when I start playing Disney music.

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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

Duh, Google Glass was 2013. A brand new one that Meta pumped an obscene amount of money into had better be much improved to aid the government's warrantless surveillance programs on Americans

Which is what it is, just another platform for intelligence gathering that Meta sells to the government

...and not only are morons voluntarily wearing them, they're paying for the privilege to do so

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

like the google glass was used for porn as soon as it was released, and then shortly google stopped making them.

[–] The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org 9 points 1 day ago

the entire internets life cycle has always been:

  1. new tech
  2. new porn delivery option
  3. widespread use of new tech
  4. profit
  5. repeat
[–] 1D10@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

To be fair,some of the earliest examples we have in all media is "porn".

[–] VoidJuiceConcentrate@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Meta tells the people that buy these glasses that they "only record audio and video when you tell them to" but that turned out to be an absolute lie. It's always looking, always listening, and people shouldn't use these fuckin corpo people trackers and advertisement machines.

[–] tuskyo@ttrpg.network 1 points 10 hours ago

Yes, it's only acceptable for the state to monitor people in public.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That she did something about it, and is being hailed as a hero. Both rare.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

fair enough, shame really does have it's place...US could use more of it in the right areas

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Shame is never gonna stop those guys. Broken cameras will.

[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’ve always wanted a pair of glasses with a cool hud, that tells me the time and weather and shows me what song im playing or a text i got. Is that so evil?

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

As long as it doesn't have a camera, no. But all of them do, so yes.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago

Reminds me of this story. Some guy went into a Macdonalds in Paris, which for some reason had security guards, and they evidently tried to forcibly remove his G-glasses, which were surgically attached to his head. I believe there was a rumor that the place was mobbed up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/cyborg-steve-mann-details-alleged-mcdonald-s-assault-flna889595

[–] tuskyo@ttrpg.network -2 points 10 hours ago

Oh no, god forbid someone records her in the most recorded state on earth.