BBC News - Woman covertly filmed for 'humiliating' social media content - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cdxpqg22q34o
Video version of the original story. He comes across as a creep.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
84768 readers
4252 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hidden cameras and recordings have been things for like 100 years.
Edit and privacy law's reflect that.
Also everyone is literally constantly pointing a camera at you in public with their phones. Public places don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
this seems to be an actual problem.
https://www.404media.co/metas-ray-ban-glasses-users-film-and-harass-massage-parlor-workers/
surprised so many dismiss it so casually
Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It's just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that's all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)
It's like saying I'm dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that's a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.
But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they're more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.
I'm not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I'm pointing out that the problems isn't new
In the 90's and 00's there was a "video voyeurism" panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.
Because I think you'd agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it's from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren't quick to do anything:
##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism
On September 21, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (S. 1301) aimed at preventing video voyeurism. The Senate approved the measure on September 25, 2003 (see The Source, 9/26/03). It will now go to the White House for President Bush’s signature.
Sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would make it a federal crime to knowingly “capture,” by videotaping, filming, or photographing, an “improper image” of another individual, defined in the bill as “an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The term “broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image “with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.” In order to convict an offender of video voyeurism, prosecutors would have to show that the individual knowingly intended to capture the image.
Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI) said that video voyeurism “is a serious crime, the extent of which has been greatly exacerbated by the Internet. Because of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. As a result, individuals in the victims’ rights community have labeled video voyeurism ‘the new frontier of stalking.’”
Stressing the need for a federal law criminalizing video voyeurism, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) explained that many states “have passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal lands such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well-accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology.”
https://www.wcpinst.org/source/congress-criminalizes-video-voyeurism/?hl=en-GB
It's still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don't really work that well and b) because it's just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
What were the victims doing that would incriminate them? I am not saying that it isn't enough to just not want to be filmed, but most people don't seem to care about privacy so I am wondering if they had some leverage.
They don’t have to be doing something.
You just capture their likeness and Ai prompts do the rest.
Ooof.
Btw I have video of you engaged in passionate sexual congress with a platypus. Send me bitcoin or your mother sees it!
How did you know about my platypus kink? Please send it to me.
what a great take, to start with victim blaming
wow.
Yup, that's where I started. You can tell because apparently you can read minds and stood right next to me as well when I started to think about this.
load more comments
(3 replies)
What did she do that was humiliating? I get not wanting random videos of oneself online, but why is she so anxious about the video? She was just shopping, what so embarrassing about that?
He was trying to pick her up, she didn't want him to, he kept trying, then he posted it online and she was embarrassed and asked him to remove it. He said he will if she pays. She feels humiliated and she was used.
Could even be nothing. I'm imagining part of it being social engineering, gaslight people into thinking the video you have of them is embarrasing
Or baiting people into reactive abuse, and editing the video to make it look like they were the aggressor.
This is not about smart glasses.
holding a glass slab in front of someone’s face is a lot more likely to be clocked.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. They are cheaper and even less obvious than thick black ray bans.
So pervert blackmailers switch to button cameras. T
It is entirely about smart glasses. button cameras have been around for AGES. But they have shit lenses and crap sensors; these fucking chodes want to up the production value on the nonconsensual porn they already shoot with their phones - on the stairs up skirts, down the blouses of women, etc.,
they want a head cam with better resolution and head tracking.
keep advocating for the perverts
But they have shit lenses and crap sensors
Gopros are 4k and can be much less visible than chunky glasses.
keep advocating for the perverts
Strange logic. You are hyperfocused on a particular product. I'm highlighting the more serious concerns. Neither of us are "advocating for the perverts".
wow so just lie huh? just straight up fuckin lie?
you fucking liar. a go pro is a fucking cube with lens AND A SCREEN exposed. A BIT MORE CONSPICUOUS THAN YOU MADE IT OUT, WAY MORE OBVIOUS THAN A PAIR OF RAY BANS.
or are you so mentally deficient you can't tell the difference between CAMERA CUBE and sunglasses?
what go pros are you buying? you fucking liar garbage
god I hope nobody paid to educate you, it was an absolute fucking waste of resources
Wow. So much anger. Why?
Yes a gopro has a screen but you only have to poke the lens through a hole in a bag or piece of clothing to have something superior and better camouflaged than chunky glasses.
Again I'm not arguing against your dislike of smart glasses, but you are missing the forest for the trees.
load more comments
(4 replies)
If I ever see someone wearing smart glasses near me I will slap them off their face.
You think battery is acceptable but not illegal recording?
fwiw I think you are completely right for asking this. Violence-loving freaks around here, sometimes.
The right to privacy is important
Yes, I agree. So is the right to not have your shit rocked out in a public street because someone doesn't like the shape of your camera
If someone breaches any part of the social contract, it seems a little rich to for them to lean on its protections while they're doing it.
What part of the social contract is being breached by filming in public with a glasses shaped camera vs a regular camera
I don't think the shape of the camera matters half as much as:
- overtly brandishing it at someone
- trying to hide the fact that you are brandishing at someone (like by hiding it in your glasses)
Those actions are seen as aggressions by many, many people, as can be seen in the fallout from the original Google Glass, because there is an implicit desire to frame the target as guilty of something.
I'm sure this part is obvious now as it follows directly from above, but unprovoked aggressions violate the social contract, and brandishing cameras or surreptitiously recording people are widely regarded as aggressions.
Wait, who says battery is unacceptable across the board? Has anyone ever taken that position?
I mean, Mohandas Gandhi thought so.
Nah
"Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission."
Seems like pushing the definition of battery, buy I guess it does call for battering someone under certain conditions. 😅
I think I understand where you're coming from, and this is mostly humor and pedantry on my part, but given that the definition of "battery" is "unlawful intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact," the quote from Gandhi isn't "pushing" it, rather is in perfect alignment, as he stated "unlawful" use as his acceptable use of violence.
you don't consider deliberately invading people's privacy a form of assault?
that's fucking cute.
If you're in public, you have no expectation of privacy.
It'd be one thing if you were at a hospital or at home. But walking down the street? No such privacy.
apparently it's already a problem in places with every expectation of privacy...
https://www.404media.co/metas-ray-ban-glasses-users-film-and-harass-massage-parlor-workers/
seeing your responses makes me distrust furries
Seeing the responses defending assaulting someone just for having a thing and not being able to tell the difference between being against your immediate response ovlf violence and defending something that is already fucking illegal makes me deeply distrust this entire website. You people are fucking insane and need to learn how to follow a thread of thought.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If I catch a glasshole directing their gaze at me, I'll beer batter them, them deep fry them, head, glasses and all.
view more: next ›