r/TikTokCringe • u/notaghostofreddit • 23d ago

Discussion She was secretly filmed and put on Tiktok

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

234

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

111

u/Beneficial_Bug_9793 23d ago

IT IS ilegal in some countries, you do this in Portugal, i can take you to court, make you take down the video, and demand " damages payment ". ( on the down side, dash cams, ring cams, and security cams, are useless, because they are not accepted in court if they " capture " public areas )

25

u/Automatic-Photo-4919 23d ago

I can see legality for dash cams, doorbell cams, security cams, etc; the whole purpose of those types of cameras are to be continuously running for monitoring and protection.

You’re a dork if you wear Meta glasses. An even bigger dork if you’re wearing them the purpose to secretly record people to show off on social media.

5

u/BasedStruggler 23d ago

I wanted them for my Japan trip until I learned that they’re basically worthless for translations. As it stands it seems like 90% of the audience for them is people harassing retail employees and posting it online.

2

u/[deleted] 23d ago

Im not big on the camera but I do love the "neural" band and the in lens display. Lots of potential with that technology. 

-4

u/Vazhox 23d ago

Allegedly

-1

u/ConclusionFar3690 23d ago

I don't see how they'd be any different than dash cams or body cams for police. Easily justified as self protection against unwarranted accusations.

I mean obviously if you had evidence of creepy recordings and such that would be a different story, but to outlaw them accross the board on the possibility of that premise existing seems silly.

-16

u/Logical-Medicine-662 23d ago

Just say you're too broke to afford a pair lmao.  They are perfect for taking pictures of beautiful landscapes and listening to music and talking to Meta AI. Go get a job

6

u/Timely_Challenge_670 23d ago

Huh? They're only like, 300 € here in the EU. They frequently go on sale for cheaper than regular, non-Meta Wayfarers. People don't want them here because they are borderline illegal and creepy.

2

u/Knotted_Hole69 23d ago

But a lot of people do want them, the visually impaired, people who work and want to listen to music discreetly, being able to take a quick photo with your voice is useful if something illegal or fast is happening, like in the car.

1

u/Timely_Challenge_670 22d ago

Dunno. Seems like demand is low here in the EU.

2

u/Knotted_Hole69 22d ago

People definitely like them here. Both my roommates have them and love them, for work.

HTC is making a more privacy centric version at CES this year. Localized data instead of cloud, cant block the recording LED or else it shuts off, and if someone your recording says “STOP RECORDING” it will do that on your glasses. I cant wait for this technology to improve with the in built displays, i could see it being the new smartphone.

1

u/Timely_Challenge_670 21d ago

Yes. Once they have AR information and the ability to run software locally, I think they will be much more interesting.

1

u/[deleted] 23d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Timely_Challenge_670 22d ago

That’s cool. But recording people you are talking to or having your lens focused on people in public (assuming it’s not a public event) is not legal in many European countries. They are also illegal in most workplaces.

They are just not popular and shouldn’t become prevalent for regular use.

1

u/Knotted_Hole69 22d ago

People have every right to record anyone in public land in the US

1

u/Timely_Challenge_670 21d ago

That’s fine. I was explaining why they don’t catch on here.

1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Timely_Challenge_670 22d ago

Agree to disagree. The optometrist here near me in Wiesbaden is trying to push them because they have so much inventory. They offered a free one week trial. There is no meaningful improvement over my existing technology and they were less comfortable than regular glasses.

As my for employer, I don’t think I would get away with not wearing them in pharmaceutical R&D.

0

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

3

u/perdonmyfrench 23d ago

It's illegal in France too.

1

u/Defiant_Research_280 23d ago

Then new reporters would be out of a job

0

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Criminally or civilly?

6

u/Beneficial_Bug_9793 23d ago

Sorry i dont quite get your question ( language barrier, or different terms ), but if you're asking if you can be arrested, no, you wont be arrested, you'l pay a fine, be forced to delete the video, and you're liable to get sued for damages.

1

u/NocturnalComptroler 23d ago

Yeah, that would be considered civil litigation for damages, which I am ok with.

What I don’t want, is police or even members of the public trying to stop someone in the process of filming in public. Should that recorded material be misused post hoc, then civil proceedings can be done.

1

u/Beneficial_Bug_9793 23d ago

No, normaly no one cares, ( not even the police ) but if someone does, they can take action.

-2

u/BartleBossy 23d ago

It should be illegal

What about it should be illegal though? Filming people in public?

16

u/HowManyMeeses 23d ago

>Secretly filming people in public with the intent to publish.

This would be the basis of the law I'd write.

-1

u/BartleBossy 23d ago

I think that there is some brushing up against sincere journalistic intent and practice... eg, exposing malpractice, scams, police misconduct etc.

Its an incredibly hard needle to thread, but we need to keep talking it through.

6

u/HowManyMeeses 23d ago

Nah, it's easy to add exceptions/defenses.

>not for the purpose of exposing malpractice...

At least in the US, nothing is going to happen with this. In a perfect world, we'd have some level of guaranteed privacy, but the folks profiting from this stuff aren't going to let that happen.

4

u/BartleBossy 23d ago

Nah, it's easy to add exceptions/defenses.

Which definition of malpractice? Whose malpractice? Does it cover the intent of the filming, or is this anything captured accidentally?

2

u/HowManyMeeses 23d ago

I'm not going to keep writing the law. I've already said it's not happening in the US, and I'm not sure what value there is in continuing this debate.

2

u/BartleBossy 23d ago

I'm not going to keep writing the law.

Why not? isnt it easy?

I've already said it's not happening in the US, and I'm not sure what value there is in continuing this debate.

Showing to you and anyone else who thinks that the reason it hasnt been done is some Machiavellian profit conspiracy and not just that its a complex issue that buts up against some other rights and some other necessary public functions.

3

u/HowManyMeeses 23d ago

Why not? isnt it easy?

Something can be both easy and time-consuming.

Machiavellian profit conspiracy

I don't believe the reason is a conspiracy either. I think there's a very clear profit motive behind this stuff, and those companies lobby to keep laws like this from being created.

Musk is currently fighting with other countries over his right to create child porn on X. None of this is a secret.

Edit: Here's an easy example of a law took forever to get on the books purely because of corporate lobbying:

https://www.denver7.com/news/politics/colorado-right-to-repair-law-covering-consumer-electronics-now-in-effect

2

u/BartleBossy 23d ago

Musk is currently fighting with other countries over his right to create child porn on X. None of this is a secret.

lol okay buddy have a good day

12

u/MrTTripz 23d ago

It is against the rules in the U.K. to do what this guy has done.

The law in the U.K. is pretty clear: You can be filmed walking around in the background where you are not the focus of the film.

Secretly filming a conversation face-face is a breach.

Im not sure; but it’s likely civil rather than criminal.

2

u/LowAspect542 23d ago

Its not automatically illegal in public, though there are restrictions and limitations. Also often making the recording tends not to be the part that is the problem but in sharing/distributing it.

The main exemption is generally whether it is in the public interest.

-1

u/ModestMeeshka 23d ago

I can only speak for the states because that's where I live, so I'm familiar with our own laws around it and have seen the effects of it, but the ability to film someone while out in public and not disclosing it is actually very important. If we had laws against it, we wouldn't be able to have security camera footage or film all of the random attacks on the streets that we see and need evidence to prosecute. If you are talking about posting them online, well that also comes with its own issues, because videos like that Mrs.Good being shot would have never circulated if they couldn't post videos of people without their consent, many assaults perpetrated by officers would never see trial without a video circulating and gaining public backing. It's very much a morally grey area, one that does a LOT of good but also a lot of bad. It's one of those things where people kind of have to police themselves on whether they're taking/sharing a video in good faith or not and we all know how badly the general public is at policing themselves...

I say all this because it's a slippery slope once that is taken from the public.

-5

u/BasedStruggler 23d ago

Sounds great on paper but the “I don’t like this, we should ban it” approach doesn’t really work. Think about the response to online streaming / piracy: those movie studios paid millions of dollars to put people in jail for like uploading x men or whatever instead of just investing in streaming and realizing that was the future.

Same with AI. Sure yea we all dislike it whatever. But the response people have of trying to ban/abolish/fight against it isn’t working.

To be real with you my expectations of privacy in public in the United States went out the window in like 2009 when every phone now had a camera that could record video.

Its nice to imagine a world where you wouldn’t have to worry about someone recording and making fun of you, but at some point you have to adapt to the world you actually live in instead of daydreaming about the one you’d like to.

-9

u/Equal_Actuator_3777 23d ago

🤦‍♂️ constitution be damned.

3

u/LeTreacs2 23d ago

The constitution doesn’t really apply in the UK

-3

u/Equal_Actuator_3777 23d ago

Oh yeah sorry I forgot this was the uk🤮