yeah, no, we still disagree. I think you are missing the point completely, and continually.
general protip: if the conversation is about some behavior being creepy or weird or against social mores, and you jump in talking about the legality of it, you are missing the point, and also contributing to the creepiness.
hop in a time machine back to 2000, and imagine there’s a digital camera that’s marketing itself as being very easy to attach to your shoe in order to take surreptitious upskirt photos.
people say “wow that’s a fucking creepy product” and you jump in to say that technically it’s not illegal, and people have the right to attach cameras to their shoes. and if a woman is wearing a skirt in a crowd of people, and sees a guy with a camera on his shoe, she has the right to walk away from him. that is technically true, and also completely misses the actual point.
if you think upskirt photos are a bad analogy, here’s a reddit thread from 2 weeks ago about a gynecologist wearing the “Meta Ray-Ban” sunglasses that have a built-in camera.
because this “I can do whatever I want” Ron-Swanson-wannabe brand of libertarianism is very predictable.
if you go to a dinner party and the host notices your Spyware Amulet and says “turn that off or leave my house” would you respect their property rights? without pissing and moaning about it?
if a bar or restaurant banned them (like happened with Google Glass) would you respect that rule as well?
if you were on a date, and your date noticed and said “that’s kinda creepy, would you mind turning it off?” would you do it? or would you start ranting about how it’s not infringing on your date’s rights?
Those places aren't public places, so of course I'd turn it off or leave.
If I was in public and someone told me to stop recording, I'd likely say "no." Hasn't that been a major point of pushback against police demanding that we not record them, for example?
spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 1 day ago
yeah, no, we still disagree. I think you are missing the point completely, and continually.
general protip: if the conversation is about some behavior being creepy or weird or against social mores, and you jump in talking about the legality of it, you are missing the point, and also contributing to the creepiness.
for another example, upskirt photography was legal in the US until 2004 (at least at the federal level, state laws seem to have trickled in around the same timeframe)
hop in a time machine back to 2000, and imagine there’s a digital camera that’s marketing itself as being very easy to attach to your shoe in order to take surreptitious upskirt photos.
people say “wow that’s a fucking creepy product” and you jump in to say that technically it’s not illegal, and people have the right to attach cameras to their shoes. and if a woman is wearing a skirt in a crowd of people, and sees a guy with a camera on his shoe, she has the right to walk away from him. that is technically true, and also completely misses the actual point.
if you think upskirt photos are a bad analogy, here’s a reddit thread from 2 weeks ago about a gynecologist wearing the “Meta Ray-Ban” sunglasses that have a built-in camera.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 day ago
Okay, then, we're in disagreement. But I'm still able to use it, so.
Call it creepy if you want, that's fine, that's your opinion. It's not infringing anyone's rights.
spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 22 hours ago
yeah. except when you’re not.
because this “I can do whatever I want” Ron-Swanson-wannabe brand of libertarianism is very predictable.
if you go to a dinner party and the host notices your Spyware Amulet and says “turn that off or leave my house” would you respect their property rights? without pissing and moaning about it?
if a bar or restaurant banned them (like happened with Google Glass) would you respect that rule as well?
if you were on a date, and your date noticed and said “that’s kinda creepy, would you mind turning it off?” would you do it? or would you start ranting about how it’s not infringing on your date’s rights?
FaceDeer@fedia.io 22 hours ago
Those places aren't public places, so of course I'd turn it off or leave.
If I was in public and someone told me to stop recording, I'd likely say "no." Hasn't that been a major point of pushback against police demanding that we not record them, for example?