Bay Area University Issues Warning Over Man Using Meta AI Glasses On Campus 131
The University of San Francisco issued a campuswide alert after reports of a man using Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses to film students while making "unwanted comments and inappropriate dating questions." Although no violence has been reported, officials said he may be uploading footage to TikTok and Instagram. SFGate reports: University officials said "no threats or acts of violence" have been reported, but they have been unable to identify all students who appear in the videos. They urged any school members affected to alert the app platform and the USF Department of Public Safety. "As a community, we share the responsibility of caring for ourselves, each other, and this place," school officials said in the alert. "By looking out for one another and promptly reporting concerns, we help ensure a safe and supportive environment for all."
The glasses feature a small camera that can be used for recording by pressing a button or using voice controls. Meta advises users to act "responsibly" when using the glasses. "Not everyone loves being photographed. Stop recording if anyone expresses that they would rather opt out, and be particularly mindful of others before going live," the company said.
The glasses feature a small camera that can be used for recording by pressing a button or using voice controls. Meta advises users to act "responsibly" when using the glasses. "Not everyone loves being photographed. Stop recording if anyone expresses that they would rather opt out, and be particularly mindful of others before going live," the company said.
There are many bay areas.... (Score:2)
At least they specified which one they are talking about in the summary, if not the headline.
That's not a creepy man! (Score:2)
That's Mr. Elon Musk!
Uhhhhhh (Score:4, Interesting)
How exactly is this different from the same thing with a smartphone? Don't people walk around recording TikToks of strangers with their phones every day?
Re:Uhhhhhh (Score:4, Informative)
How exactly is this different from the same thing with a smartphone? Don't people walk around recording TikToks of strangers with their phones every day?
It's only a little different, in that the "victim" did not understand that the glasses were a recording device. But from a legal standpoint that doesn't matter, because (contrary to popular belief, even in California) secret video and audio recording is legal in this situation.
It is possible (in California) to illegally audio record someone in a public place, but not in the general circumstances described here. What the glasshole did is almost certainly perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is this different from the same thing with a smartphone? Don't people walk around recording TikToks of strangers with their phones every day?
It's only a little different, in that the "victim" did not understand that the glasses were a recording device. But from a legal standpoint that doesn't matter, because (contrary to popular belief, even in California) secret video and audio recording is legal in this situation.
It is possible (in California) to illegally audio record someone in a public place, but not in the general circumstances described here. What the glasshole did is almost certainly perfectly legal.
Too many in here get hung up on public versus private. There are also semi-public areas, like say Malls and college campuses. Places where "the public" can and often do go to, and are welcome. but where one records at the owners pleasure, not as some walking down the sidewalk inviolable right.
So the University has every right to tell the person they can no longer record. The person's eyeglass recorder is secondary to the real problem.
The real problem was "unwanted comments and inappropriate dating ques
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't any different.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't walk around with a smartphone, recording video, *all* the time. It's pretty obvious when someone is recording with a smartphone, because it's necessary to hold up the phone facing the scene being recorded. These glasses make it creepier because they are *always* recording, and attempt to do so in secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. A guy with a smartphone has to do a lot to walk around and record all day without looking like he's doing it. When they're caught it's obvious they have a whole creep setup.
As a run of the mill perv I'm not happy that other guys are gonna ruin jogging down the strip on a hot day with a set of dark shades. Girls like it too but they wanna turn heads, not get uploaded to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly is this different from the same thing with a smartphone? Don't people walk around recording TikToks of strangers with their phones every day?
Basically, no they don't. Sure people film on phones, but it's actually something of an effort to film because you have to hold the phone up pointing at something which makes it awkward to use as a phone. And it's usually pretty obvious.
How is gunfire different than rocks thrown? (Score:2)
How exactly is this different from the same thing with a smartphone? Don't people walk around recording TikToks of strangers with their phones every day?
This is about degrees and I think you know this. These glasses are a powerful video tool. From a common-sense standpoint, this man is effortlessly recording all interactions and it's not even obvious to many. If he did this holding up his phone, a camcorder, or a gopro, it would be obvious to the participants as well as everyone nearby. You can easily knock a phone out of someone's hands or cover them up or push them away. That's a lot harder to do with glasses. From a legal standpoint? I am not a la
Makes me appreciate Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he isn't there, so it really doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he isn't there, so it really doesn't matter.
The European Übermenschen are still mad that we messed up their attempt to take over the world. Their constant "It's so much better in Europe" whining shows they are not only pissed at the US for getting involved, but a serious deep seated insecurity that the rest of the world put them in their place.
Re: Makes me appreciate Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here, it is illegal to film someone without their permission, even in public. A$$holes like this would be arrested.
Are going to start building those special camps you Übermenschen Europeans like to put people in that you don't like again? We're glad you are not here too!
Free to creep (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah America. The land of "I am free to be as creepy as I want because it's not illegal". Then someone takes matters into their own hands and they get prosecuted. You do deserve Trump after all.
I think you make a good point.
The law is important of course, but when we make decisions on how to live a good life, we have to base it on some sort of moral framework that sits above the law. Sure - I am legally permitted to film someone, but it's probably good manners to refrain from doing so. The fact that an action is legal doesn't necessarily mean it is moral, or a good idea.
To be frank, when someone stridently asserts their rights to do something that gives them pleasure (such as using Meta AI glasses
Meta Spy (Score:2)
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not about legality: he was on private property, and the university could legally remove him from saying 100% legal (but perhaps annoying, disturbing and/or inappropriate) things on their campus.
This sort of thing happens all the time: creepy men act inappropriately to women, and when it reaches a certain threshold, the women report it to the authorities. Sadly, it's so common it's very much not news-worthy.
What's newsworthy is that this is the first report of a creep being creepy with smart glasses (that can record video of the women).
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Recording video is not illegal.
Recording audio IS illegal in California without the consent of all parties.
Since Meta glasses record audio by default, he likely broke the law.
Re:What's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Recording video is not illegal.
Recording audio IS illegal in California without the consent of all parties.
Since Meta glasses record audio by default, he likely broke the law.
According to California Penal Code 632, it's legal to record people where there is no expectation of privacy. Specifically, walking around outside on a street, in a park, grocery store, or on a campus, or other public spaces, you and your conversations can be recorded without your consent.
If you are having an intimate conversation where nobody could overhear you, you might have a case. But outside in public where anyone could just walk by and overhear you at all? Not likely a "confidential" conversation with an expectation of privacy.
Especially since everybody knows that everybody has. phone in their pocket that could be audio (at least) recording everything. You could even argue that the guy wearing the camera on his head is OBVIOUSLY recording, thus defeating any reasonable expectation.
This is all so 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:2)
Then beat his ass off.
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:2)
Why sexual favors after destroying his property? I don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think he may be up to that justifies causing extreme discomfort for many people?
With the vagueness of the term "creepy", it gets into the weeds pretty quickly.
Some women have a floating definition of creepy. If a man approaches her to say hello, and she finds him attractive, it is innocent flirting. If she doesn't find him attractive, he is a creep.
There are some things that most everyone finds creepy. A man going up to a woman's bedroom window and peeping inside. A level of creepy that has been determined to be criminal. For the record and as a comparison:
I find a person simply wearing these classes to be creepy.
While almost the same thing, I do not find police wearing body cams to be creepy at all.
I find people with facial tattoos to be very creepy.
Point is, some people have the opposite reaction. They think these glasses are cool, that police shouldn't wear body cams, and that the more tattoos a person has, the more beautiful and empowered that person is.
Finally, for the record, on privately owned spaces like a campus, recording is at the discretion of the people running the place. In most cases, it is no foul, no problem. People have set up to record on their smartphones, and record with the implied or direct permission of the person being recorded. There is a person holding a mic, and it is recorded interview style. And there is seldom a problem, and seldom a pushback.
Note - In one of my photography classes, I was making images in the local mall, when approached by the mall manager. He told me that as private property, I couldn't photograph there without permission. I apologized, and said I wouldn't take any more images. We chatted for a while, and I asked about ones I'd already taken. He said not to worry about those, just so I know for the future. I thanked him. I'll bet if I was being an asshat, he might have had a different answer. So I left, and did get a good grade for the class.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are complicated that's for sure. But let's be real, do you have any doubt in your mind that most women would find this person's behavior creepy?
I agree with you here. I believe most women, indeed most men would find darn near everything about this person creepy. The questions and comments he made. The creepy surveillance glasses. The video footage would be a real ick as well.
I am stuck with the dual issues that college campuses are no place for a man doing this sort of thing, a place where easily offended rule.
I'm also stuck with my likely reaction, which would be to walk over, first ask the woman if the guy is bothering her, and if she says y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the campus police can't do anything unless people are willing to draw the line and say that this behaviour is unacceptable.
And they did. The police had an actionable situation. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think he may be up to that justifies causing extreme discomfort for many people?
These days? existing. Or maybe he wore a hat from the wrong political party. Or maybe he delivers pizza after all we all know those people rape children in the back of their restaurant.
Honestly people are uncomfortable around people these days for all sort of batshit insane reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:4)
I actually do think it's batshit crazy to ban someone because they are simply creepy *in your eyes* as opposed to someone who has broken the social construct we call the law.
I guess you're also a fan of vigilante justice? If I look through your post last week were you also one of the people suggesting the police impound that Waymo which made an illegal u-turn because you think it feels wrong that no fine was issued, and despite no legal basis for actually doing what was suggested?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Creepiness isn't a crime, and neither is filming or recording in public spaces where privacy isn't expected. Assuming someone’s guilty just for seeming 'creepy' is outdated reasoning.
Re: (Score:3)
Incidentally, coughing and sneezing in someone's direction is illegal, depending on the specifics. It qualifies as assault and possibly battery.
It is also relevant that freedom matters. People are and should be free to do things even if others don't always like what they do. There is no legal protection against "being made uncomfortable." People can feel uncomfortable for all kinds of crazy reasons that don't give them any leverage over whoever is causing it. A muscular man simply walking down the side
Re: (Score:3)
I shouldn't need to point out the obvious, but this IS slashdot after all....
On private property, everyone is a guest of the owners. They have very broad authority to ask you to leave. So, "making my other guests feel uncomfortable" is a plenty good enough reason. But even that depends on details. The owner of a public store can't ask a black person to leave just because he is black. That is straight up illegal. But what if the other white customers are white racists who all complain that the black pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Well here's the thing: freedom of speech is meaningless if it only covers "nice" speech.
(Yes, recording adds a significant wrinkle).
I'll posit that what creeps you out here is what's being asked (hinted at in TFS - we can surmise that it's not questions about puppies and Christmas), not the recording aspect.
Suppose what's being asked are not questions of prurient interest, but instead questions about the Maximum Orange Leader's mental health? Certainly at least one orange person in a position of power is creeped out by this. Should that person have the power to put a stop to the "creepy" questions? As an American, I say "Hell no".
Should the Klan, the Nazis, the Commies, the Socialists, the Atheists, the Moonies, the Birchers, the Family, Nexxium, Diddy, the GOP, NAMBLA, or You (if you're on American Soil) have freedom to say what you will? Even if it's "creepy"?
In the USA, yes, certainly. That is the point of the First Amendment.
It's nearly unlimited (see: 'Fire in a crowded theatre' thing), and the recording part is more about where the recording is played back, how it's used, whether the recorded personal likeness is used to endorse, embarrass, imply, ensnare, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:2)
And what was the "doing" other than asking questions and recording answers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about freedom of speech. It was what he was doing that was bothering them not what he was saying. But nice try.
What is the law in whatever country you are in that provides that creepiness is a crime, and that no person can be offended, and made uncomfortable. I outlined my creepy list, and noted there are some people who find what I find creepy to be free expression, or even beautiful. Pleas, can you provide the statutes that no one dare be offended?
For the record, I agree with you in principle. Recording with these glasses is just another example of the infamous Google ""glasshole" wearers. So there will be simila
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's to stop people from being creepy if we just allow it? If you aren't going to draw the line somewhere than I suppose there is no line and we should just forget about being decent people to one another at all? You are talking about the very fabric of civilization here. I guess then if people get so creepy that minorities of all types become afraid then that's fine with you because it's not fair to draw a line.
The problem is - and my research confirms it, is that some people find my very existence creepy. see below. Some find all men are creepy. https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]
the woman's ick list Grows every day. https://thesophian.com/the-ult... [thesophian.com] https://www.mamamia.com.au/ick... [mamamia.com.au]
Ick equals creepy. And the big problem is that yes, it comes down to individuals. I'm pretty fit, linebacker build. Some women find that scary - even creepy, others love it.
As I've put it, I find facial tattoos and a lot of pi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think a majority of women would be ok with a strange man coming up to them and filming them while asking them personal questions? I mean it was bad enough to make the news. Let's not pretend this is a 'Grey area'.
If ou are prepared to taks a little telling, you seem to have a habit of dressing a lot of my posts with non-sequiturs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. "The problem is how do we determine what is actually creepy without making everything creepy?". You propose that it is all too confusing to make the judgment. But soccer we are talking about a specific situation, none of that matters unless you find this situation confusing.
One of my "issues" is that I think. A lot. A lot of people want gut reactions. You have to go elsewhere if you think that gut reactions are the metric. In the end, decisions have to be made as to what is "creepy" and what is not "creepy". Official decisions. Lawful decisions.
For thought out decisions, it is not terribly difficult to determine that a peeping tom or a flasher is officially creepy. We criminalize that without anyone objecting, except possibly people who like to flash or peep.
To the issue
Re: What's the problem here? (Score:3)
Zuckerberg is a Creep; he's wearing em (Score:2)
It is curious he started wearing them after FB investors identified his interest in martial arts and potential injury as the biggest threat to FB. Not any of the many atrocities the company perpetrates globally.
So my suspicion is that by the time he made that announcement he already was cognitively impaired by a mafia ringer and they use the glasses to tell him what to do. H
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
for why this would or should be newsworthy.
Voyerism is a crime, but it is also a kind of psychopathic disorder that is easily sent into remission with a simple therapy - a few punches in the snout.
It helps when a person is aware that sick assholes walk among us people with this junk on their snouts, videotaping in secret without asking for permission first, because the treatment for their disease can be applied early and in a comprehensive manner.
Re: (Score:2)
for why this would or should be newsworthy.
Voyerism is a crime
According to California Penal Code section 647, voyeurism is about places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a private room where you are not allowed, or a bathroom). So, photographing people who are walking around in public (pretty much anywhere on campus, outside or inside buildings) is definitely not that misdemeanor. Even if the camera is not obvious.
You leave your house, people can see you.
Anyone can also photograph or film you and they do not need consent.
Don't like that? Sta
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can also photograph or film you and they do not need consent.
We're discussing newsworthyness here, buddy. Leaving aside the issue that this did on private grounds, this crap will show in places that are outside of California, where the laws protect people's privacy somewhat more.
Re: (Score:2)
for why this would or should be newsworthy.
Voyerism is a crime
According to California Penal Code section 647, voyeurism is about places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a private room where you are not allowed, or a bathroom). So, photographing people who are walking around in public (pretty much anywhere on campus, outside or inside buildings) is definitely not that misdemeanor. Even if the camera is not obvious.
You leave your house, people can see you. Anyone can also photograph or film you and they do not need consent. Don't like that? Stay in your house.
While people are focussing on the cameras here, after reading TFA, we can see the issue.
This was on a campus, where cry bullies are in absolute unquestionable power and control speech.
The article states that the person recording made "unwanted comments and inappropriate dating questions." which could be anything from saying "hello" to "do you put out on the first date?
A campus is only a semi-public space. You record videos there at the administrations pleasure. Most of the time there is no problem.
A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but sometimes people are so creepy that they need a lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dishing out a few punches in the snout is a great way for the puncher to end up arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
Come arrest me, creep defender.
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings fellow creeper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be illegal or a policy violation, I don't know. But it *is* creepy and voyeuristic.
Re: (Score:2)
Voyeuristic in a public space? That's not how that word is suppose to be used. Voyeurism is watching something that is generally considered private. Nothing happening outdoors on a college campus is "private".
I'll agree wearing a video recorder on your face is creepy but it's not illegal. I'm cool if we want to make public recordings illegal but I doubt that's what you really want to happen, as that would prevent the media from recording stuff as well. Not to mention TikTok!
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about outdoors or in public spaces? People who wear these things also wear them indoors, to work, in private places.
I agreed that it's not illegal, just creepy.
Indeed, what's the problem? (Score:2)
If USF wants to hire a carnival barker and announce every single passerby, I still see no problem.
So what's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
He was asking inappropriate dating questions, like "Would you like to go out to dinner?" Had this person been attractive, nothing would be amiss.
Re:Once again showing (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing a simple "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself" can't easily handle.
If desired, they could laugh at him and ask him how small his penis is.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they could report him and get him thrown off campus for being a creep.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
I think "fuck off" is more satisfying though.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could report him and get him thrown off campus for being a creep.
But how do we know that he identifies as a him?
(Hey, don't look at me; we old patriarchal types would have strung him up from a tree ...)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could report him and get him thrown off campus for being a creep.
But how do we know that he identifies as a him?
(Hey, don't look at me; we old patriarchal types would have strung him up from a tree ...)
Those fsckers assumed his gender. Poor guy had to go into therapy
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could report him and get him thrown off campus for being a creep.
If we are going to throw people out for being creepy you've just marginalised the majority of the population in the eyes of *someone*. What's the definition of creep? Be specific.
I find people with your opinion creepy, it's like you're trying to lead the downfall of society.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you guys had the second amendment...
Yes we do, so if the creep actually attacks you and you are in fear of your life, you are allowed to carry around a gun with which to defend yourself. And his glasses will document the whole thing, so your legal defense case will be very short. (Perhaps nothing more than a 5 minute interview at the scene of the crime, and that's the end of it.)
Not sure what glasses have to do with it, otherwise. We don't have some other Amendment that says you can legally kill glassholes on approach.
"Ah, but ladies and gent
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you guys had the second amendment...
It's California.
Re: (Score:2)
Where we're free from having to deal with intimidation from assholes walking around town with guns. Well, outside of the cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Where we're free from having to deal with intimidation from assholes walking around town with guns. Well, outside of the cops.
The reference was to California; do you mean in California?
If so, I hate to break it to you, but there are lots of people walking around town with guns. They are criminals.
There are criminals where I live, too, and they are also walking around town carrying guns. However, I am not particularly intimidated by them. Can you guess why?
Re: (Score:2)
oh yes anonymous american poster who calls us "you guys" it's totally ok and a good thing if college girls just whip out a pistol whenever a guy acts like a creep.
Re: (Score:2)
oh yes anonymous american poster who calls us "you guys" it's totally ok and a good thing if college girls just whip out a pistol whenever a guy acts like a creep.
I missed it -- when did that incident happen?
Re: (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Just some russian shills trying to get americans to murder each other.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have me confused with someone else. I've got nothing to do with, nor do I support Trump.
Re: Once again showing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness it's not a creepy fuck walking around with a phone camera.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the concern is that people can just walk around pretending to not be recording. not sure if these things have a little red light or something but I'm sure people will have mods varying from disabling the LED physically all the way to jailbreaking solutions.
anyone wearing this shit should get social backlash
Re: (Score:2)
My phone doesn't have a little red light. I can put it in my shirt pocket and start it with a voice command or a BlueTooth remote.
Bullying works. (Score:2)
Yeah and if you get caught doing that you'll face consequences.
My sister had a creep taking pictures of a kids function and sure they could only trespass him from the property but the cops that showed up weren't exactly kind and though he didn't legally need to, he handed over every single memory card.
Because in fact laws don't actually matter that much and going through a process to defend taking pictures of kids with a pro ass photo setup isn't really something people wanna go through.
I'm sure he thought
Re: (Score:2)
We need to bully people on this.
Come on over to my health club and give it a try. They put up a sign about not taking photos of people without permission. The signs are now gone. Evidently, there was a controversy over taking selfies in the gym vs "accidentally" catching someone in the background. The selfie crowd won. We can't even do anything about the twinks with cellphones in the locker room. Cell phone use is now an entitlement.
Anecdote: Some time ago, a couple of the hot babes in the gym were setting up a phone on a stand to record
Thanks Dwight (Score:2)
The autistic smartest guy in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO ALL comments are unwanted if not asked for expressis verbis.
Also what about the creepy selfie freaks, who catch everybody behind them on their camera?
Also, if it's publicly accessible, it's OK to film, if you feel 'uncomfortable', call the feelings police.
The cry bullies are still upset that their power is waning. For a while, normal people tried not to offend them, until normal people found it that being offended was their core competency, an attempt to create a tyranny of the weak.
“It is the tyranny of the weak, isn’t it? The weapons being tears, reproaches, vapours, and other such unscrupulous means which are employed by gentle, helpless women like your aunt!”
— Georgette Heyer
Re: (Score:2)
Uh the crybullies currently have both houses and the presidency. Though I suppose failing to pass the budget is power waning.