Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It’s just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that’s all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)
It’s like saying I’m dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that’s a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.
But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they’re more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.
I’m not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I’m pointing out that the problems isn’t new
In the 90’s and 00’s there was a “video voyeurism” panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.
Because I think you’d agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it’s from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren’t quick to do anything:
##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism
On September 21, the House approved, by voice vote, a bill (S. 1301) aimed at preventing video voyeurism. The Senate approved the measure on September 25, 2003 (see The Source, 9/26/03). It will now go to the White House for President Bush’s signature.
Sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act would make it a federal crime to knowingly “capture,” by videotaping, filming, or photographing, an “improper image” of another individual, defined in the bill as “an image, captured without the consent of that individual, of the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual.” The term “broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image “with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.” In order to convict an offender of video voyeurism, prosecutors would have to show that the individual knowingly intended to capture the image.
Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI) said that video voyeurism “is a serious crime, the extent of which has been greatly exacerbated by the Internet. Because of Internet technology, the pictures that a voyeur captures can be disseminated to a worldwide audience in a matter of seconds. As a result, individuals in the victims’ rights community have labeled video voyeurism ‘the new frontier of stalking.’”
Stressing the need for a federal law criminalizing video voyeurism, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) explained that many states “have passed laws that target video voyeurism to protect those in private areas, but there are fewer protections for those who may be photographed in compromising positions in public places. S. 1301 makes the acts of video voyeurism illegal on Federal lands such as national parks and Federal buildings, using the well-accepted legal concept that individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also serves as model legislation for States that have not yet enacted their own laws or need to update existing laws to account for the rapid spread of camera technology.”
It’s still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don’t really work that well and b) because it’s just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.
pointing to the problems of the 90’s and 00’s is hilariously bad comparison. those devices were 320x200 or 640x480, not HD, 4k etc.
it’s facile and stupid to compare these as if they’re the same thing; and furthermore, the form factor and ability to disable to recording light - no, it’s not nearly the same fucking thing.
How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.
To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.
you dumbfuck, I’ve been photographing on film since the 80s. I spent ages doing just black and white hand developed large format photography. to answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
perfectly exposed? where the developer didn’t need to push or pull? the resolution is incredible. off a spy camera like a minox? well that depends on if it’s a 8x11mm or 35mm, but the aperture is so tiny, restricting the amount of light on the negative that resolution isn’t really a concern.
NONE OF THIS CHANGES YOUR STUPIDITY, YOU GODDAMN TOOLBAG. keep working for the creeps
answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
No shit, Sherlock.
Which is why your complaint that bringing up all the hundreds of fucking privacy laws which explicitly define privacy is “childish and facile” is goddamn hilarious.
You’re just a sore kid crying because he was wrong.
You’re an illiterate moron.
Try to recap your point. Wait, you have none, because you too have admitted that metas glasses aren’t in any way a new problem.
That’s like being so shittingly brainless that you’d argue that the drug trade was invented with tor-networks.
You have no point you have no argument you’re just moving the goalposts because your tiny little ego can’t take having been wrong. I sincerely do hope you’re a kid, because having a psyche like that as an adult would be pitiful.
Yeah I believe it is a problem, but not a new one. It’s just made it tiny bit more convenient for the richer perverts, that’s all. (Although I noticed in my years of driving taxis a (spurious?) correlation between rich and perverted. And that definition for me does not include any of what the right would consider perverted, like most LGBTQ+ even in party getup)
It’s like saying I’m dismissing uber-drivers getting robbed, because taxing drivers were robbed for literacy centuries before the invention of uber. Except that’s a bad analogy, since uber needs your details whereas you can just hop into a taxi easily and anonymously.
But idk, porch pirates were a thing before amazon delivery was so popular, now they’re more plentiful, despite increase in doorbell cams.
I’m not dismissing privacy invasions casually. I’m pointing out that the problems isn’t new
In the 90’s and 00’s there was a “video voyeurism” panic even, because the huge shoulderheld cameras became smaller and in the early noughts you already had tiny spycam gadgets. Disney world upskirting, upskirting on the streets, definitely harassing masseuses, etc.
Because I think you’d agree that this was before smartphones or smartglasses, since it’s from 2003 and we all know congresses of any sort aren’t quick to do anything:
##Congress Criminalizes Video Voyeurism
https://www.wcpinst.org/source/congress-criminalizes-video-voyeurism/?hl=en-GB
It’s still a problem which needs to be addressed, but banning smart glasses is hardly the solution, because a) bans don’t really work that well and b) because it’s just an empty gesture for the most part, since the dedicated perverts still have their ways.
pointing to the problems of the 90’s and 00’s is hilariously bad comparison. those devices were 320x200 or 640x480, not HD, 4k etc.
it’s facile and stupid to compare these as if they’re the same thing; and furthermore, the form factor and ability to disable to recording light - no, it’s not nearly the same fucking thing.
creep defenders gonna defend creeps I guess.
Fucking lol.
What you’re doing is “moving the goalposts”.
I’ll answer anyway; do you know what the resolution of an analog camera is, dipshit?
(edit, this is literally 90 years old)
How exactly did I defend anyone by showing you laws against “creeps” from prolly before you were born? You’re just pissy I proved you so thoroughly wrong. Those aren’t even the first privacy laws, they’re just one example.
To think that voyeurism as a problem has just arrived because of fking meta-glasses is so childish and you’re having a tantrum because you don’t want to admit to being wrong in public.
you dumbfuck, I’ve been photographing on film since the 80s. I spent ages doing just black and white hand developed large format photography. to answer your silly question, it’s impossible to say -
perfectly exposed? where the developer didn’t need to push or pull? the resolution is incredible. off a spy camera like a minox? well that depends on if it’s a 8x11mm or 35mm, but the aperture is so tiny, restricting the amount of light on the negative that resolution isn’t really a concern.
NONE OF THIS CHANGES YOUR STUPIDITY, YOU GODDAMN TOOLBAG. keep working for the creeps
No shit, Sherlock.
Which is why your complaint that bringing up all the hundreds of fucking privacy laws which explicitly define privacy is “childish and facile” is goddamn hilarious.
You’re just a sore kid crying because he was wrong.
You’re an illiterate moron.
Try to recap your point. Wait, you have none, because you too have admitted that metas glasses aren’t in any way a new problem.
That’s like being so shittingly brainless that you’d argue that the drug trade was invented with tor-networks.
You have no point you have no argument you’re just moving the goalposts because your tiny little ego can’t take having been wrong. I sincerely do hope you’re a kid, because having a psyche like that as an adult would be pitiful.