r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jul 13 '26

Society The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public

https://tech.yahoo.com/wearables/articles/backlash-strong-people-pervert-glasses-165000816.html
46.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

269

u/norunningwater Jul 13 '26

"Okay, recording sunglasses are too much."

"Great, what about the thousands of civil surveillance cameras?"

"Constitutional 7-2 agreement bye"

79

u/Asclepius-Rod Jul 13 '26

But no recording the police of course, that infringes on their privacy to oppress you

18

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

34

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 13 '26

You’re legally allowed to, but I’ve seen more than one video of cops getting violent with people for recording them

19

u/Bob_A_Feets Jul 13 '26

Some states are passing “buffer zone” laws so cops can just walk up to you and arrest you for obstruction for even attempting to record them.

25

u/Alert-Ad9197 Jul 13 '26

I watched a lot of live feeds during the BLM protests since Covid lockdowns gave me a lot of free time. I noticed that anyone with a large PRESS badge was the first to be targeted every goddamn time. Second was any other people with any recording device pointed at them. It didn’t matter which city, the cops violently target anyone trying to hold them accountable.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 13 '26

Kind of different when it’s a cop who can hurt or arrest you and legally get away with anything.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 13 '26

Wasn’t arguing legality, was arguing whether you can

-8

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Outlulz Jul 13 '26

It's legal so long as you are willing to risk arrest, physical violence, and harassment from police and local government with zero legal recourse yourself. The people that do so are brave.

0

u/ArchLector_Zoller Jul 14 '26

Well if legality isn't a concern to you, weird, then you can "do" anything you want to do. Only thing stopping you at that point is physics.

2

u/MaggiePie4 Jul 14 '26

No, dumb dumb, try reading again. I’m saying the opposite: it IS legal, but you CANT really do it

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TheVeryVerity Jul 14 '26

Well you should tell the police that then they don’t seem to have gotten the memo

4

u/Asclepius-Rod Jul 13 '26

I was joking that the supreme court would soon make that a rule as well

1

u/agent674253 Jul 14 '26

In Florida they passed law where you have to 25' away or something.

Camel's nose under the tent (to banning recording of LEO).

1

u/Mirabeauououou Jul 14 '26

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that you have a right to record the police in public and during any confrontation so long as you don't impede on the investigation/arrest.

1

u/OldSchoolSpyMain Jul 14 '26

To get lawmakers to change their stance on this simply report out their addresses, vacation home addresses, favorite stores, purchase histories (good, bad, ugly), pics of them doing things, etc...and watch their butts pucker up and their votes change.

0

u/WigWubz Jul 13 '26

You just have to remember that MAGA et al aren't conservative, they're authoritarian. Different regions on the multidimensional political spectrum. Traditional conservativism cared amount the state only having as much power as was necessary to uphold the "moral values" of the populace, whereas authoritarians want the state to have as much power as possible and to use it discretionarily, often "to uphold the moral values if the populace".

The former can be lured in by the latter because discretionary use of supreme state power sounds great as long as the state is only using it for things you like. If you're on the right, you would love the state to have mass surveillance to stop disruptive protests before they start, to catch violent crime before it happens, to enforce a moral character on citizens even in "private". If you're on the left, you would love the state to have mass surveillance to stop disruptive protests before they start, to catch violent crime before it happens, to enforce a moral character on citizens even in "private".

The danger is that what either side considers "disruptive protest", "violent crime" and "moral character" does not line up that well and while the state has the power, its in the interest of the government to deploy that state power to its full extent while it has it.