Comment by embedding-shape

7 hours ago

> He did harass them a bit.

Maybe I'm too European to understand, where exactly is harassment occurring? He's asking Meta employees questions, doesn't seem to follow them around, and when they walk away or say no, he doesn't exactly force them to stay or anything? Doesn't there have to be some intimidation or humiliation or similar for it to be harassment? Or asking employees what they think of the products they develop and support is the harassment part?

66 comments

embedding-shape

Reply
pbasista  5 hours ago

Arguing about whether to call this kind of behavior a harassment or "a bit" of a harassment is in my opinion all besides the point.

This video mainly shows a person approaching other people in public and recording them with these glasses. Which is one of the typical scenarios in which such a glasses are probably going to be used. And that video shows that even the Meta employees themselves generally do not seem to like it very much.

That is the point.

  • pc86  5 hours ago

    I don't know if I agree that man-on-the-street pseudo journalistic stuff is one of the "typical scenarios." Any time I see a product like this I think:

        1) Can I use it to watch a more immersive movie without bothering people who may be in the next week?
    2) Can I use it to make my games more enjoyable, either console or PC?
    3) Can I use it to record IPSC/USPSA matches?
    4) Can I use it for work?

    I don't think these will make more people bother strangers on the street, it's just another way the same people can do that.

    • rurp  3 hours ago

      That's fine for you, but why on earth do you think every other person out there will only use these for innocuous nerdy reasons? Ask any adult woman you know and there's a good chance she will have at least one story of being stalked or getting really creeped out by someone. Consumer tech that enables creepy behavior will be used in that way by too many people.

      1 reply →

Vinnl  6 hours ago

I felt a bit uneasy when the employees indicate they're uncomfortable with the filming and he asks them why, while continuing to film. Given how they're blurred out and that their discomfort is kind-of the point w.r.t. the issue he's trying to raise, I don't think this meets the bar that Meta usually adheres to when it comes to taking down videos, but describing it as "a bit" of harassment doesn't sound too wrong to me.

  • Hugsbox  5 hours ago

    They feel uncomfortable with being filmed while going about their day to day life? Maybe they should stop making products that enable such a thing.

    • pc86  5 hours ago

      How do these glasses "enable" it any more than a gopro, a security camera, or the phone that nearly every person in the developed world already has?

      6 replies →

hyperpape  6 hours ago

I am just an American, but I live in Portugal and it is legally not allowed to film people in public without their consent (you also can't have a street facing surveillance camera like in the US). Moreover, people take this rule very seriously. If it appears that you are doing so, they will be visibly bothered (I know some kids who have had uncomfortable interactions because they weren't aware).

I don't think blurring faces fully addresses that (though I'm not commenting on legality in Amsterdam).

I can see the argument that this video is in the public interest (hey, I'm Americanese), but it does seem plausible some people would find it a violation of a norm.

  • mb_thd  6 hours ago

    > it is legally not allowed to film people in public without their consent

    Lots places have laws like that. Maybe Meta shouldn't sell a device that makes it easy to do it anyway.

    • froddd  1 hour ago

      Most places have laws against publishing such content, not recording it in the first place.

      Edit: I do however agree with the sentiment.

    • hyperpape  5 hours ago

      Not defending Meta, they suck.

      I realize the idea that rules exist even if you dislike the people they (momentarily) protect, even if those people have violated them, is a tough pill to swallow.

  • buzer  5 hours ago

    > I am just an American, but I live in Portugal and it is legally not allowed to film people in public without their consent

    If that's actual law that's a bit surprising. In many EU countries there are journalistic exceptions (which may or may not apply in this specific case depending on local law)

    > (you also can't have a street facing surveillance camera like in the US)

    And same here. Usually the limit is that if you do it within GDPR household exemption then you cannot have it facing street, but if you do it on GDPR scope then you need to fulfill the GDPR requirements (e.g. posting notice, be ready to answer GDPR requests, perform balancing tests for recording etc.).

  • vasco  6 hours ago

    This is true de jure but not de facto and if anyone wants proof just go look up the number of Teslas in portuguese streets and the zero convictions over continuous recording of the public.

  • the_doctah  5 hours ago

    >you also can't have a street facing surveillance camera like in the US

    That's wild. Their solved crime rate must be in the gutter.

    • pc86  5 hours ago

      It's kind of an interesting catch-22 if that's the right idiom. Places with these laws do generally have a higher rate of property crime when comparing like to like, e.g. urban areas of similar size, to those without it. However that higher crime rate often leads to installation of security cameras covering more private areas.

    • tiagod  5 hours ago

      The original comment doesn't tell the whole story. Street facing surveillance cameras are allowed if they are strictly covering the entrances to the building.

Springtime  5 hours ago

Bending down to stare at a female employee's ass at waist level after he asked her to turn around isn't harassment[1]? Like, up until that point it was almost ribbing but that was quite the turn given it'd be the same issue whether he was wearing smart glasses or not.

Not to mention the sarcastic, insincere tone he adopts after being asked what he's doing, claiming he's "such a huge fan" of the Meta glasses. There is a way to draw attention to privacy and this is a poor way to go about it.

[1] Cambridge Dictionary: 'behavior that annoys or upsets someone'

qnleigh  3 hours ago

To me he crossed a line by asking the woman to turn around and then crouching down to film her butt. That is a really creepy thing to do and a lot of women would find that threatening. Ask a female friend how they would feel if you find that surprising.

WhitneyLand  6 hours ago

I don’t know the legal of boundary harassment but he’s clearly trolling them and making people uncomfortable.

FrustratedMonky  5 hours ago

That's the point.

If everyone is wearing the glasses, wherever you go, you'll be filmed all the time, with most people not bothering to ask.

  • alt227  4 hours ago

    I mean, you are being filmed everywhere you go anyway by flock cameras, police/government cctv, even cctv on business and peoples house/ring doorbells etc. Concent to being filmed in a public place is not really asked anywhere, so I dont see it as a big difference personally.

    • fendy3002  4 hours ago

      Try to have the 24/7 cameras at chest level or lower, you'll find people starting to get uncomfortable. You can easily reach those angle with the glasses, and different with smartphone which also can, the glasses can be hard to distinguish.

      2 replies →

    • FrustratedMonky  4 hours ago

      I think the ironic thing in the video, is the employees of the company making the product, abject to the use of the product when it is directed towards them. So why should everyone else be comfortable with it.

      1 reply →

deadbabe  6 hours ago

You don’t understand the difference between recording things in good faith vs recording things because you want a reaction you can exploit for personal gains.

  • toasty228  5 hours ago

    Meta is butt raping our privacy 24/7 but god forbid some dude ask 3 questions to its employees, I'll never understand people bootlicking megacorps like these.

    Fuck meta and fuck every single of their employee, you can't keep building hell and complain when people hit back

  • suttontom  6 hours ago

    Hahahaha, "recording things in good faith." What an insane statement to make to paint this guy in a bad light. Should people also be concerned about walking in good faith, or eating their lunch in good faith? Meta created these creep glasses so people could do exactly what this guy is doing: film people in public (without them knowing). There is no "bad faith" when you're just literally doing what the product is for.

    • bennyelv  5 hours ago

      This is a strange take…

      1. You’ve inferred that the reason the glasses exist is to enable people to harass other people. That’s a very odd conclusion. 2. Where’s the without them knowing? Meta literally designed the hardware so that you do know that you’re being filmed, unlike almost every other camera on the market. 3. You haven’t managed to separate the decisions and accountability of an individual from the tool that they use to execute those decisions. This is a strange way to look at the world. It places inherent moral values into inanimate objects.

      5 replies →

    • deadbabe  4 hours ago

      The outrage over these glasses is overblown.

      They have been around for a while. At some point it just became trendy to hate on them, but people are completely oblivious to the fact that you are more easily recorded secretly with smartphones. In fact, most viral content you see where someone is being recorded without their consent is from a smartphone, I have yet to see any such content filmed with actual smart glasses.

      The camera is useful for many things besides recording video, but now we can’t have nice things because people think everyone with glasses is trying to creep on them.

      It’s just generic AI/tech bubble rage.

  • embedding-shape  6 hours ago

    I've heard of journalism before, yes. So? Since when is this harassment?

    Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places, I thought we still cared a tiny sliver about privacy? It all went away when we all gave away our private data to the AI companies, or what's the deal?

    • Macha  6 hours ago

      > Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places,

      There are a very large contingent on HN who are against restrictions on corporate activities because they envision themselves as potential beneficiaries of a low regulation environment. Many of them also apparently view criticism itself as a restriction.

    • shrubby  5 hours ago

      Read The Nerd Reich to see what this is about.

      Or search "nerd reich" or "tech fascism" here to see the instantly flagged topics.

    • nananana9  6 hours ago

      > Can't believe we have corporate bootlickers on HN of all places

      I urge you to see the output of this:

        "news.ycombinator.com".split(".")[1]

teekert  6 hours ago

He's specifically bending down to look at the behinds of the persons, also asks them to turn around "scanning" them.

If anything I think the employees are all nice people. I get the message but it's cringy to watch.

I'm also against cameras everywhere, but let's not pretend this is not all also possible with other devices.

Of course, Meta taking this down but not a lot of other, completely the same, stuff is the bad thing.

  • ceejayoz  6 hours ago

    > let's not pretend this is not all also possible with other devices

    Let's not pretend being able to beat someone with a rock and shoot them with a M61 Vulcan at 6k rounds per minute are the same thing just because they involve projectiles.

    Facebook started explicitly (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat...) as a way to creep on women.

    • bennyelv  5 hours ago

      This kind of hyperbole is nonsense. It’s a camera, being compared to other cameras. If your point doesn’t stand without dubious analogy then it’s not a very good point.

      The fact is that if you stood outside any company office, with a highly visible camera crew, and then asked people who were passing by whether they worked at that company, most of them would probably feel quite apprehensive.

      They would also be apprehensive if there was no camera at all.

      So what exactly is the point that is being made in this video? People are apprehensive when put into situations with other people where their intentions are not clear and there are signs that the intentions might be malicious. Very informative…

      4 replies →