Dilara was on her lunch break in the London store where she works when a tall man walked up to her and said: “I swear red hair means you’ve just been heartbroken.”
The man continued the conversation as they both got in a lift, and he asked Dilara for her phone number.
What Dilara did not realise was that the man was secretly filming her on his smart glasses - which look like normal eyewear but have a tiny camera which can record video.
The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3m views. “I just wanted to cry,” Dilara, 21, told the BBC.
The man who filmed her, it turned out, had posted dozens of secretly filmed videos to TikTok, giving men tips on how to approach women.
Dilara also found out that her phone number was visible in the video. She then faced a wave of messages and calls.
In the US, that does not legally violate your privacy if you are in public.
You get that there is a difference in “I can tell I’m being filmed” and not, right? You get that law is behind technology sometimes, right? Not sure why there’s an argument here.
You’re almost always being filmed in public in many places. The courts say it doesn’t matter whether or not you realize it, in the US.
So no, you don’t realize either point. Cool, you’re basically an intellectual brick.
The law is always behind technology. There’s no gotcha here. I was just talking about the standard the law has to pass to last, under current interpretation. Lots of laws get passed and then struck down as not meeting the standard of constitutional muster. Just because someone wants to ban something doesn’t mean the law will stand. Thanks for the degredation though.
There are many states that have 2-party consent laws regarding being recorded. In my jurisdiction, what the glasshole did might have been illegal. (I’m not a lawyer or judge)
Two party consent laws only apply in situations where they would have an expectation of privacy, as in not in public. Much of the whole first amendment auditing community is focused on educating people about this. State laws can’t trump constitutional precedent.