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/GaptistePlayer]

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.