Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
“You’re going to be famous on the Internet!”
Lol, he’s right but not the way he thinks.
In the meantime, eth8n claims to have “filed a claim with the police and it’s a misdemeanor charge.”
“What she did was assault, can get arrested for it if I see her again and felt like it,” he wrote.
This guy sounds like such an annoying little bitch.
Sounds like a mini trump
"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."
And then everyone clapped at the noises he was making, all the way to the next stop, and then President Obama got on the train at the next stop and gave him the Medal of Freedom for his bravery and letting the woman sit down.
Seriously did this motherfucker just move to the city, that he thinks anyone will believe that bullshit?
I'm willing to bet the crying laughter from people around him came after his glasses got snatched off his face and snapped.
He went out in public with the intention of provoking strangers, recording their reactions, and publishing it on the internet for profit. A stranger got a bit more provoked than he had preferred. It turns out that some people won't be fine with being provoked, recorded, and published on the internet. How strange.
And now because of all of the media attention being generated he's getting exactly what he wants. Millions and millions of views on his TikTok. He will likely be able to afford brand new glasses in less than a week.
I hope someone breaks his next pair as well then.
"I even let her sit down when she got on the train at 42nd street, and I continued to stand.”
Bro did nothing but stand still and is taking credit for "allowing" her to sit lmao
not sitting to leave the seat open for someone is still doing something, you just don't see the action as it was a mental decision to leave the seat free for someone else. he could have easily just sat.
that said, screw his little spy glasses.
You dropped this, queen. 👑
In the places where tech like this would be helpful, there's no reason that "recording" needs to be a part of it.
Colorblind person needs help identifying colors...great. Doesn't mean the video needs to be stored. Face-blind people need help recognizing faces, it can access a local database. If the entire point of AI is to do real-time computing, there's no reason for any image/video to be permanently stored anywhere.
Frankly, make the fucking things illegal in public, and allowed only in private settings where recording a member of the public won't be a concern. They're useful for doctors who are performing an operation and interacting with another doctor via the internet at the same time. They're useful for things like that. But there is ZERO reason you need to be recording strangers in public without authorization.
But failing that, at least scrap the ability to record to a server. Shit's just creepy. It was creepy when Google tried it. It's even more creepy when it's from a company that is open about using AI to create "personalized" ads using the images of people in it's servers.
These glasses do not have even a fraction of the computing power to do any of that on device. It's a uploading everything to the cloud. The design is surveilance first ask questions later.
I'm not at all a fan of being recorded in public but all of your examples...
These are situations in which the camera in the glasses is technically being accessed, which in software means something is analyzing the feed from the camera. If it is generating any output anywhere, even just visually for the user, it is recording in my mind. It may not be storing video, but it might face match and store a list of every recognized face it saw on the subway. There is no way for the OS to reasonably know what the feed is being used for unless it has exclusive control over the camera feed... and I sure as fuck aren't going to trust the smart glasses manufacturer to be honest about what it is doing with the camera feed...
So basically, if the camera is in use at all, an indicator light should be on.
I'm sure it's an unpopular opinion, but what she did is really shitty and she should be charged with it. She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
It's really no different than if she smashed someone's phone because they were recording video in public.
She could have at least asked him to stop before destroying property.
We don’t actually know that she didn’t, unless you’ve got another article with more detail. This article is sparse in details, but it’s only his word in it that she didn’t talk to him. That nobody was bothered by it. That it went from 0-100 in the span of a look.
And idk about you, but that doesn’t sound all that likely to me, when everyone laughs at him for the consequences (seen in video). The whole thing screams this guy is an unreliable narrator. The whole thing to me reads like he knew he was pissing people off, like a YouTube prank channel sort of bother, and expected to walk away from it consequence free.
This article has a bit more detail and it does make him sound like a shitty prank channel sort that relies on annoying other people going about their lives. But again has no info about the encounter except his own words.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/imagine-being-based-guy-says-143000399.html
This is a very unpopular opinion in my opinion
I hate everything about the dude in the video but breaking his property is a shitty response.
The problem with US society is a lack of shaming and negative enforcement.
Unpopular unpopular opinion: recording public places for yourself shouldn't even be considered a bad tone. Distribution of those recordings should, unless they contain some illegal activity.
These go through Facebook's servers. This is not a private recording.
Counter point: if you start filming me in public without my permission your phone is getting smashed, and I don’t care how shitty anybody thinks it is.
I'm glad the law disagrees with you. Someone doing something you consider disrespectful doesn't justify assault and property damage.
It sounds like you have some anger control issues going on if that's your go-to response.
When you wake up and walk outside to the corner store, you've had like 40 devices filming you.... lol
Yeah but there’s a difference between a security cam and someone filming me to mock me on the internet. And for the record I’m not stoked about everything else filming me either.
https://www.foia.gov/ - Entire youtube channels with millions of followers request city camera, body cams, court cams, traffic cams.... everything... and mock you on the internet. I don't disagree with your feelings just reminding you of the world we live in.
If I could get away with it I would destroy those too.
Those devices don't get in your face, aren't easily manuevered to film like a creep. Also the same device don't follow you around like a stalker.
Are those differences really that hard to see?
... Are you a cop or something?
Pretty sure this is going to be unpopular but …
Filming someone on a subway without their knowledge is often legal for video alone in the United States if you are in a public area and not focusing on intimate parts of their body, but it can become illegal depending on state wiretap (audio) laws, transit rules, and “unlawful surveillance” or voyeurism statutes. There are court cases and civil lawsuits touching on subway and public‑transit recording, but it really depends on purpose (e.g., sexual exploitation vs. news/photo use), location details, and whether audio is captured.
This guy is a creep and no he shouldn’t be able to record people like this. Then again you shouldn’t be able to destroy someone else’s property because you don’t like what they are doing with it. Would you feel the same way if he had his phone out and she did the same thing to it? What if it was a girl filming a man and he did this to her, would that be acceptable?
I hate to tell everyone we essentially live in a surveillance state and are constantly being filmed. Go look up Flock cameras or how easy it is to get Ring footage for example. I’m not condoning this in the least, but it is what it is. We honestly need better laws regarding this level of surveillance but as of right now we don’t.
Morally and ethically what she did may be applauded, but legally it’s not really all that gray.
I'm thinking this might have been a publicity stunt for either her or the glasses. If you see her launch a career from this then you know it was for her, meta wins either way.
someone should have done this to robert scoble like ten years ago because it might have stopped the whole craze.
I wonder if the people defending the dude know where the recordings go.
Would they still defend him if the recordings are sent to (or otherwise available to) Meta?
The doubebag smile on his face in the left pic tells me everything I need to know about who's in the right here.
I've never been to America and even I know not to be a dick on a New York subway.
There’s a disturbing number of creeps ITT arguing that they should be allowed to film people without their knowledge on the subway
Can we have local AI type of tech that does not save videos? Something without a wireless connection.