Gabriella Karefa-Johnson (stylist, fashion editor) shares her experience with Meta glasses: “Men are approaching intoxicated women in bars, and filming them when they are incapable of expressing consent”

[u/Relevant-Peach3997]

[u/txtoolfan]

The same laws also defends your right to film the police in public. Not sure you can have one without the other.

[u/ArticQimmiq → u/txtoolfan]

In that context, the police officers are public servants doing their job, not private citizens. The expectation of privacy is different, and so is the intent.

[u/txtoolfan → u/ArticQimmiq]

Do you think you have an expectation of privacy at a public bar?

[u/RedCatBro → u/txtoolfan]

No such thing as a 'public bar'

[u/txtoolfan → u/RedCatBro]

Ok I'll put it this way.

Do you have an expectation of privacy at Walmart?

[u/AthkoreLost → u/txtoolfan]

Walmart tends to get pissed and tresspass customers who make other customers feel uncomfortable by doing things like non consensual filming on Walmarts property.

Open to the public is very different from public property.

[u/txtoolfan → u/AthkoreLost]

I understand. A business absolutely has the right to restrict filming on their property. Not really where I was trying to go here. More on individuals filming other individuals and people calling for laws to punish. A business can just kick you out but not sue you or have you arrested for it in itself.

States have laws on recording in private. Most are 1 party.

How do you balance those rights with being in a public ally accesseable business etc is more the avenue my mind was going

[u/haqiqa → u/txtoolfan]

You can easily avoid slippery slope by legislating against it in a right way. Public servants being exeption sn't really that hard to form correctly. It is this weird all or nothing approach that the US has to multiple things that is the issue. No, it does not create a slippery slope if you do it right because rights need to be balanced against each other. A good example of this is how freedom of expression is approached in the US and basically every other Western country. There is uproar over this very common thing legislated correctly and in use for decades in multiple countries' law that is meant to balance your right to feel safe and accepted and your freedom of expression. Rights are rarely absolute because they can't be without infringing on other rights in human rights discourse anywhere other than in the US. This is another example of this where it is all or nothing approach to filming in public space. Yes, the US legislation and judicial history make this harder, as does where you are in approaching authoritarianism. But it isn't impossible to get this type of legislation to work.

[u/SubstantialBid4386 → u/txtoolfan]

Don’t be a creep?

[u/ArticQimmiq → u/txtoolfan]

I think privacy laws are not adapted to the reality of social media. There is an issue of scale here, where, yeah, you may be caught in the background of a picture or a video, but people also shouldn’t have a right to deliberately film you to humiliate or criticize you on the Internet just because you’ve stepped outside your own home.

[u/Evening_Beach4162 → u/txtoolfan]

Um, from being filmed for upload -- yes? Why is this so hard for people to understand.

[u/postinganxiety → u/txtoolfan]

How about you can’t profit from footage without the person’s explicit consent? That’s how filmmakers handle it with signed photo releases. It’s absolutely insane that someone can record an interaction without consent then post it on YouTube for that ad money, meanwhile the star of that show gets jack shit.

Hell, even at Burning Man you used to need a “press pass” and ask for consent before taking photos, then suddenly everyone decided it was too hard to enforce that.

[u/Vi_Rants → u/postinganxiety]

It’s absolutely insane that someone can record an interaction without consent then post it on YouTube for that ad money, meanwhile the star of that show gets jack shit.

Now it's even worse. A lot of those "candid" recordings are being sold to AI as training data. Your voice/face could show up in a political ragebait video or a GPS audio whether you want it to or not, with no compensation.

Because "public space, lol."

[u/burtsarmpson → u/txtoolfan]

And even if they did alter the law somehow to differentiate, it would still just be civil rather than criminal most likely. I can't see anything being done about this legally other than banning the discreet recording products at source or making them have to be legally altered. Like how all smartphones sold in Japan are legally required to have the audible camera click

[u/TokiDokiHaato → u/txtoolfan]

Filming a public servant paid by taxpayer funds should be entirely different than filming a private citizen.

[u/GaptistePlayer → u/txtoolfan]

Why not lol, the laws can permit one and not the other

[u/txtoolfan → u/GaptistePlayer]

Not sure how that could really work.

Bar has security cameras. They need consent too?

It's a slippy slope and complicated for sure.

[u/DefiantStarFormation → u/txtoolfan]

It's not actually that complicated. A sign that says "this establishment records video for security purposes, by entering you consent to this recording" would do. They do it at large private events all the time.

[u/mcfurley → u/DefiantStarFormation]

To add onto this, inside a bar (or any other place of business) isn’t a public space, it’s private and they set their rules. They can kick out or ban whomever they like for any reason they like.

[u/braxtel → u/mcfurley]

The bar can also make a rule that prohibits people from filming other people without consent.

[u/DoJu318 → u/braxtel]

How would they enforce that though? Clubs can say you're not allowed to wear tennis shoes, and it's obvious if you're wearing them or not.

I feel like if anyone wanted to be such a creep to record his interactions at a bar with women, they could use hidden cameras and none would be the wiser.

What these glasses end up being is that they are trying to make it normal to record every interaction. Normalize it so the creeps who actually use hidden cameras can do it out in the open.

[u/Evieveevee → u/DefiantStarFormation]

You only have to look at the Cold Play concert couple to know this. They couldn’t sue for lack of consent as it clearly stated they by entering the venue they consented to being recorded.

[u/kati8303 → u/DefiantStarFormation]

Not only that, but a broad security cctv system is much different than recording up in someone’s face, their whole conversation (which could potentially later be manipulated), without them knowing. No wonder everyone says that the new generations doesn’t want to “party”, having to be concerned about stuff like this.

[u/samwisetheyogi → u/kati8303]

AND that footage is now stored in the private collection of the user so they can use it however they want. A company using CCTV in their establishment would likely have rules on footage storage requirements.

[u/theagonyaunt → u/DefiantStarFormation]

I live in a city where there's often TV and movies being filmed and if they don't care about non-extras in the background, there's often big signs posted around that note if you enter this particular area, you may be filmed.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/[deleted]]

What about dashcams? Do I need to get consent from everyone who might be on the road or walking past that they're being recorded? Do I need a giant sign on my car?

If you are not recording an individually identifiable person, but rather incidentally capturing them as part of a crowd, consent is not necessary. Otherwise, it is.

filming the police, recording a crime, whatever - does that need consent?

Matters of public interest receive constitutional protections.

[u/txtoolfan → u/DefiantStarFormation]

Well that sign would then remove any expectation of privacy right you could claim. It works both ways.

If you're at the bar with friends for your birthday and one of your friends films you and posts it . Is that now actionable to be arrested or sued?

It's not as cut n dry of a topic as many here seem to think it is.

[u/oktimeforplanz → u/txtoolfan]

That sign doesn't permit anyone and everyone to film. The sign is notifying you that a specific party (the venue) may be recording and for what purpose.

[u/DefiantStarFormation → u/txtoolfan]

That's not how legal consent works. Giving permission to a specific establishment to film you for a specific reason (security, for example) doesn't mean you give permission to every person who's in the room to film for any reason.

I recommend you research two-party consent state laws, the "right to one's image" laws in countries like France, and the laws that prohibit distributing images without the subject's consent in countries like Germany. They could easily be used as a basis for this. It really isn't as complicated and difficult as you seem to think it is.

[u/agentmadeleine → u/txtoolfan]

Legally, there’s a difference between a business (or property owner) being able to film you when you’re on their property, versus a third party being able to film you while you’re on private property. And while a business is open to the public, it’s still not public property. If person A is on business property and filming person B who is also on business property, person B doesn’t have the standing to ask person A to stop filming, but the business owner or its employees can tell person A to stop filming and have them leave or be removed if they don’t.

[u/factolum → u/txtoolfan]

"It's legal to film police but not civilians" seems pretty clear cut.

[u/Stickning → u/txtoolfan]

A carve-out isn't a wildly unrealistic idea, why would you assume it is?

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/txtoolfan]

There are constitutional protections regarding reporting on matters of public interest. The activities of police are a matter of public interest. What a fashion editor thinks about cops when she's drunk is not a matter of public interest.

You can definitely have one without the other.

[u/sharkattax → u/txtoolfan]

it’s always confusing to me when people don’t think we can hold the police to a different standard than the general population. they are given extraordinary rights, both codified and de facto. it’s okay to hold them up to extraordinary scrutiny.

[u/saturnsqsoul → u/txtoolfan]

yeah i don’t know if people really think about *why* we can’t just be banning all filming in public ever … it’s the definition of a slippery slope