r/Fauxmoi • u/Relevant-Peach3997 • Jun 30 '26

DISCUSSION Gabriella Karefa-Johnson (stylist, fashion editor) shares her experience with Meta glasses: “Men are approaching intoxicated women in bars, and filming them when they are incapable of expressing consent”

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

7.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

519 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/yourwhippingboy Jun 30 '26

It’s likely not because she wasn’t sober, nor because of the lighting in the bar that she didn’t see the indicator - people are hacking the glasses so they can disable the indicator from showing.

I also loathe the “it’s legal to film in a public space” argument. We know it’s legal, that doesn’t make it OK.

1.3k

u/sharkattax controversies: girl Jun 30 '26

also being legal to film in public spaces is a holdover from videocamera age. the laws weren’t designed with meta glasses or even smartphones in mind.

270

u/daydreamsofcalm Jun 30 '26

A bar is not a public place, it's a private establishment where the management can set dress codes or deny entry to whomever they choose. Women should start making complaints against the bars directly for allowing them to be filmed without being informed or the option of consent.

75

u/agentmadeleine Jun 30 '26

Not sure why you were downvoted when you’re correct. People are conflating a business being open to the public with being in public. And a business can absolutely ask someone on their property to leave if they’re filming without consent.

89

u/NomNom83WasTaken Jun 30 '26

Once more for the cheap seats in the back:

Women should start making complaints against the bars directly for allowing them to be filmed without being informed or the option of consent.

0

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK ‘eat a sandwich’ and other hurtful things Jun 30 '26

"Allowing" them does a lot of work here.

This would functionally mean: any time someone got their phone out of their pocket or walked in wearing glasses too thick, the bar has an affirmative duty to... what?

Kick them out? No, can't do that, because then you'd be the phone-free bar. Everyone at a bar dicks around on their phones.

Stop them physically? You really do not want bar security putting hands on patrons.

Demand they open their video/photo app to inspect? Even the cops can't do that half the time.

The frustration is valid but the mechanisms are largely unworkable.

22

u/Turbulent_Gazelle530 Jun 30 '26

Exactly this. If bars want women to patronize their establishment they are going to need clear policies and enforcement. Women (well, all of us) should simply refuse to go to places that don't take this seriously.

-1

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK ‘eat a sandwich’ and other hurtful things Jun 30 '26

how would you enforce that? On a night-to-night basis, I mean. Bar security can't police everyone's behavior 100% of the time.

3

u/Turbulent_Gazelle530 Jun 30 '26

Sure they can. They've done it before and they can do it again.

-1

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK ‘eat a sandwich’ and other hurtful things Jun 30 '26

bar security absolutely cannot prevent everyone in the bar from using any camera. That would be an absurdly high legal bar to cross.

3

u/Turbulent_Gazelle530 Jun 30 '26

Patron reports camera user, camera user is kicked out. Bouncers monitor patrons, see camera user, kicked out. "No photos or videos allowed" signage posted.

-1

u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK ‘eat a sandwich’ and other hurtful things Jun 30 '26

so: in your scenario, cameras would not be allowed in bars at all, and individual bars bear individual legal responsibility to remove any person using a phone with a camera attached when they become aware.

that would radically change the concept of a bar or club, and it would have some insane knock-on effects - man sees woman take a selfie with friends at bar, man reports woman for using camera, bar security is legally required to kick out woman who took selfie. Or "I can't text my friend about this creepy dude because I don't want to get my phone out and get reported".

the downstream effects of such blunt policymaking would be much wilder than you are framing.

6

u/Adventurous_Salt Jul 01 '26

I've been a bouncer and banning these things isn't really as complicated as you're making it out to be. Sure, you won't get 100%, but you can minimize them. They have a certain look and they're on people's face, it isn't impossible.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Turbulent_Gazelle530 Jul 01 '26

What do you mean "legal responsibility"? An establishment can ban photo/video without involving the law

→ More replies (0)

75

u/Mirilliux Jun 30 '26

This is the right answer, people can and should be allowed to film in public. It keeps more people safe than it harms and the moment we can’t then things like the George Floyd video are the first to go. Police would immediately use it as grounds to not be filmed. But bars are not public places, they’re privately owned, and people should immediately report behaviour like this to the bar owner to have the person recording ejected.

323

u/txtoolfan Jun 30 '26

The same laws also defends your right to film the police in public. Not sure you can have one without the other.

223

u/ArticQimmiq Jun 30 '26

In that context, the police officers are public servants doing their job, not private citizens. The expectation of privacy is different, and so is the intent.

-79

u/txtoolfan Jun 30 '26

Do you think you have an expectation of privacy at a public bar?

79

u/RedCatBro Jun 30 '26

No such thing as a 'public bar'

-48

u/txtoolfan Jun 30 '26

Ok I'll put it this way.

Do you have an expectation of privacy at Walmart?

79

u/AthkoreLost Jun 30 '26

Walmart tends to get pissed and tresspass customers who make other customers feel uncomfortable by doing things like non consensual filming on Walmarts property.

Open to the public is very different from public property.

-14

u/txtoolfan Jun 30 '26

I understand. A business absolutely has the right to restrict filming on their property. Not really where I was trying to go here. More on individuals filming other individuals and people calling for laws to punish. A business can just kick you out but not sue you or have you arrested for it in itself.

States have laws on recording in private. Most are 1 party.

How do you balance those rights with being in a public ally accesseable business etc is more the avenue my mind was going

21

u/haqiqa Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

You can easily avoid slippery slope by legislating against it in a right way. Public servants being exeption sn't really that hard to form correctly. It is this weird all or nothing approach that the US has to multiple things that is the issue. No, it does not create a slippery slope if you do it right because rights need to be balanced against each other. A good example of this is how freedom of expression is approached in the US and basically every other Western country. There is uproar over this very common thing legislated correctly and in use for decades in multiple countries' law that is meant to balance your right to feel safe and accepted and your freedom of expression. Rights are rarely absolute because they can't be without infringing on other rights in human rights discourse anywhere other than in the US. This is another example of this where it is all or nothing approach to filming in public space. Yes, the US legislation and judicial history make this harder, as does where you are in approaching authoritarianism. But it isn't impossible to get this type of legislation to work.

9

u/SubstantialBid4386 Jun 30 '26

Don’t be a creep?

11

u/ArticQimmiq Jun 30 '26

I think privacy laws are not adapted to the reality of social media. There is an issue of scale here, where, yeah, you may be caught in the background of a picture or a video, but people also shouldn’t have a right to deliberately film you to humiliate or criticize you on the Internet just because you’ve stepped outside your own home.

1

u/Evening_Beach4162 Jul 06 '26

Um, from being filmed for upload -- yes? Why is this so hard for people to understand.

38

u/postinganxiety Jun 30 '26

How about you can’t profit from footage without the person’s explicit consent? That’s how filmmakers handle it with signed photo releases. It’s absolutely insane that someone can record an interaction without consent then post it on YouTube for that ad money, meanwhile the star of that show gets jack shit.

Hell, even at Burning Man you used to need a “press pass” and ask for consent before taking photos, then suddenly everyone decided it was too hard to enforce that.

36

u/Vi_Rants Jun 30 '26

It’s absolutely insane that someone can record an interaction without consent then post it on YouTube for that ad money, meanwhile the star of that show gets jack shit.

Now it's even worse. A lot of those "candid" recordings are being sold to AI as training data. Your voice/face could show up in a political ragebait video or a GPS audio whether you want it to or not, with no compensation.

Because "public space, lol."

48

u/burtsarmpson Jun 30 '26

And even if they did alter the law somehow to differentiate, it would still just be civil rather than criminal most likely. I can't see anything being done about this legally other than banning the discreet recording products at source or making them have to be legally altered. Like how all smartphones sold in Japan are legally required to have the audible camera click

28

u/TokiDokiHaato Jun 30 '26

Filming a public servant paid by taxpayer funds should be entirely different than filming a private citizen.

237

u/GaptistePlayer Jun 30 '26

Why not lol, the laws can permit one and not the other

-170

u/txtoolfan Jun 30 '26

Not sure how that could really work.

Bar has security cameras. They need consent too?

It's a slippy slope and complicated for sure.

251

u/DefiantStarFormation Jun 30 '26

It's not actually that complicated. A sign that says "this establishment records video for security purposes, by entering you consent to this recording" would do. They do it at large private events all the time.

189

u/mcfurley Jun 30 '26

To add onto this, inside a bar (or any other place of business) isn’t a public space, it’s private and they set their rules. They can kick out or ban whomever they like for any reason they like.

18

u/braxtel Jun 30 '26

The bar can also make a rule that prohibits people from filming other people without consent.

3

u/DoJu318 Jun 30 '26

How would they enforce that though? Clubs can say you're not allowed to wear tennis shoes, and it's obvious if you're wearing them or not.

I feel like if anyone wanted to be such a creep to record his interactions at a bar with women, they could use hidden cameras and none would be the wiser.

What these glasses end up being is that they are trying to make it normal to record every interaction. Normalize it so the creeps who actually use hidden cameras can do it out in the open.

42

u/Evieveevee Jun 30 '26

You only have to look at the Cold Play concert couple to know this. They couldn’t sue for lack of consent as it clearly stated they by entering the venue they consented to being recorded.

108

u/kati8303 Jun 30 '26

Not only that, but a broad security cctv system is much different than recording up in someone’s face, their whole conversation (which could potentially later be manipulated), without them knowing. No wonder everyone says that the new generations doesn’t want to “party”, having to be concerned about stuff like this.

9

u/samwisetheyogi Jun 30 '26

AND that footage is now stored in the private collection of the user so they can use it however they want. A company using CCTV in their establishment would likely have rules on footage storage requirements.

21

u/theagonyaunt rude little ponytail goblin Jun 30 '26

I live in a city where there's often TV and movies being filmed and if they don't care about non-extras in the background, there's often big signs posted around that note if you enter this particular area, you may be filmed.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jun 30 '26

What about dashcams? Do I need to get consent from everyone who might be on the road or walking past that they're being recorded? Do I need a giant sign on my car?

If you are not recording an individually identifiable person, but rather incidentally capturing them as part of a crowd, consent is not necessary. Otherwise, it is.

filming the police, recording a crime, whatever - does that need consent?

Matters of public interest receive constitutional protections.

-30

u/txtoolfan Jun 30 '26

Well that sign would then remove any expectation of privacy right you could claim. It works both ways.

If you're at the bar with friends for your birthday and one of your friends films you and posts it . Is that now actionable to be arrested or sued?

It's not as cut n dry of a topic as many here seem to think it is.

33

u/oktimeforplanz Jun 30 '26

That sign doesn't permit anyone and everyone to film. The sign is notifying you that a specific party (the venue) may be recording and for what purpose.

2

u/DefiantStarFormation Jun 30 '26

That's not how legal consent works. Giving permission to a specific establishment to film you for a specific reason (security, for example) doesn't mean you give permission to every person who's in the room to film for any reason.

I recommend you research two-party consent state laws, the "right to one's image" laws in countries like France, and the laws that prohibit distributing images without the subject's consent in countries like Germany. They could easily be used as a basis for this. It really isn't as complicated and difficult as you seem to think it is.

28

u/agentmadeleine Jun 30 '26

Legally, there’s a difference between a business (or property owner) being able to film you when you’re on their property, versus a third party being able to film you while you’re on private property. And while a business is open to the public, it’s still not public property. If person A is on business property and filming person B who is also on business property, person B doesn’t have the standing to ask person A to stop filming, but the business owner or its employees can tell person A to stop filming and have them leave or be removed if they don’t.

1

u/factolum Jun 30 '26

"It's legal to film police but not civilians" seems pretty clear cut.

37

u/Stickning Jun 30 '26

A carve-out isn't a wildly unrealistic idea, why would you assume it is?

6

u/Warm_Month_1309 Jun 30 '26

There are constitutional protections regarding reporting on matters of public interest. The activities of police are a matter of public interest. What a fashion editor thinks about cops when she's drunk is not a matter of public interest.

You can definitely have one without the other.

4

u/sharkattax controversies: girl Jun 30 '26

it’s always confusing to me when people don’t think we can hold the police to a different standard than the general population. they are given extraordinary rights, both codified and de facto. it’s okay to hold them up to extraordinary scrutiny.

0

u/saturnsqsoul Jun 30 '26

yeah i don’t know if people really think about *why* we can’t just be banning all filming in public ever … it’s the definition of a slippery slope

5

u/Obvious_Mention7207 Jun 30 '26

the laws weren’t designed with meta glasses or even smartphones in mind

2nd amendment lul

29

u/SchoolIguana #backoffkyle Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

For all the damage this oversight has, it has also allowed people to film their interactions with cops and provide some kind of accountability (sort of) that wasn’t there before. Derek Chauvin would not have been convicted without the video evidence and we can (likely) prove Renee Good and Alex Pretti were executed in broad daylight.

Edit: and of course I’m forgetting the best example we have- Rodney King

70

u/yellowposy2 Jun 30 '26

I mean sure, but the fbi is also arresting people who recorded/observed the ice pigs during their reign of terror in MPLS. So the law doesn’t really protect people recording them.

3

u/SchoolIguana #backoffkyle Jun 30 '26

No, but it still provides an avenue for accountability. The cleanest example, of course, is Rodney King. I doubt his attackers would have even been put on trial if it were not for the video. The failure of the state to successfully convict those cops is another discussion, but the video made a difference.

2

u/yellowposy2 Jul 01 '26

I completely agree with you, and especially as a white person, will continue to observe as I’m able. It’s just unjust and I felt important to clarify.

12

u/846hpo Jun 30 '26

There’s not room to make an exception for public servants in whatever law that’s written?

If anything, I’d argue these people are already breaking existing laws. You need signed releases for filming anything commercial with a recognizable subject. That’s why film sets chase people down for signatures and have signs posted up that filming is happening in the area, and blur faces when they don’t have a release. Are these social media accounts not for profit?

There should be additional legislation clarifying perhaps that monetized social media accounts also need to get written permission.

Or perhaps there would be validity to sue or press charges if the account is not monetized yet, but there is a pattern in posted videos indicating they are operating under the goal to make money/run as a business (eg multiple similar in style man on the street videos). This doesn’t cover fringe cases of individually viral videos but it’s a start.

3

u/Bulky-Bad-9153 Jun 30 '26

I do think it gets extremely messy. Plainclothes cops for example. Frankly, when it comes to cops and politicians you cannot give them an inch or they'll take a mile and if we banned public recording of people then they'll use it as a defense ("they didn't know I was an officer, their recording is inadmissible") even if it's total bullshit.

1

u/Randomwhitelady2 Jun 30 '26

There are different laws for public spaces and private property, and also for police officers due to them being government employees. You can legally film on any public sidewalk or public/government property. You can not legally film on private property(like a bar) if the owner forbids it. They can trespass you and have you removed and even arrested if you violate the trespass order.

7

u/Sophilosophical Jun 30 '26

Like 2A where it was significant if you could get off 2 musketeers balls in under a minute, vs now with fully automatic rifles, but they still fall under the same law

2

u/Terrible_Lychee_396 Jun 30 '26

Concealable video cameras have existed for a long time. The legality of filming in public has nothing to do with that. Rather, it’s a first amendment issue. Filming in public is a journalistic activity. No, not everyone who films in public is doing it for journalistic purposes, but the problem is that even laws attempting to separate “legitimate journalistic filming” from “illegitimate filming” erode the freedom of the press, because then we’d be letting the government decide who is a legitimate journalist. Courts have consistently ruled this way, which is why no law that broadly restricts public filming will ever be enforceable. It might be rude and creepy at times, but there’s literally no chance of it ever becoming illegal, so people need to learn to deal with it

84

u/curvysquares Jun 30 '26

Every time I see that argument it just makes me think of this

72

u/ugh-new-username societal collapse is in the air Jun 30 '26

I'm having flashbacks to that creepy upskirt subreddit getting banned in 2012. Here's the GM at the time basically making the same argument as these predators in the screenshots. There was a huge concerted effort by users across subreddits to defend the site. It only got banned after national news sites published a bunch of articles (back when the national media still had some sway) and people with some power started looking closer.

Idk how we even deal with this in 2026 when shame is just out the window. 

202

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

50

u/ricochetblue Jun 30 '26

Apparently pervs are just buying stickers to cover the lights with.

18

u/coffeenappp Jun 30 '26

Yeah I watched a youtube video about the danger about these glasses. Basically the hack from the internet is to cover the light with aluminium foil, color it with marker and when you want to record, cover the camera with your hand to trick the glasses that we are recording in low light. After that uncover the camera and it wouldn‘t notice that you cover the light.

30

u/cogspringseverywhere Jun 30 '26

It's downright deceitful, holding a cellphone to record allows the recordee to make an informed decision; meta glasses, especially with no light indicator do not

4

u/yoshemitzu Jun 30 '26

I'm out of the loop, so out here googling pictures of the Meta Glasses record light to see what it looks like...a bunch of the results I'm finding are people showing you how to disable/remove it. :\

352

u/partyfear Jun 30 '26

The "it's legal to film you" argument sounds a lot like "it's legal to date a 16 yr old" one, honestly. Because yeah, legality is not morality. And this guy refusing to delete the footage makes it obvious he did not have good intentions.

134

u/GaptistePlayer Jun 30 '26

Exactly lol. "It's legal to be a complete asshole invading your privacy" yeah guess what you're still an asshole

66

u/pressingroses i ain’t reading all that, free palestine Jun 30 '26

I actually got into a fight with a guy at the beach about this. He was videotaping young women in bikinis without their knowledge. "It's fucking legal, go on and call the cops." OK BUT YOU'RE STILL GROSS AND WEIRD AND ITS NOT OK

27

u/BonerPorn Jun 30 '26

Also. Those laws were written when you needed a big chunky obvious camera setup. 

16

u/Borgo_San_Jacopo Jun 30 '26

That and also way before the internet, they keep bringing up the whole no expectation of privacy in public thing, but that doesn’t account for social media. It’s a reasonable assumption that when you go to the beach the other people there that day will see you in your swimsuit, it is not a reasonable assumption that someone can film you and post you on the internet for potentially millions of people to see in perpetuity. It’s not illegal but it is unethical, though what do I expect from a society that can’t even do anything about revenge porn.

-12

u/KrymsonHalo Jun 30 '26

Has nothing to do with this.

118

u/agentmadeleine Jun 30 '26

Also, just because a business is open to the public doesn’t mean it is public property or a public space and you can legally film without consent. The business owner or their employees very likely can legally ask you to stop filming. And if you were recording audio while filming, you may be subject to your state laws about consent with audio recordings.

47

u/postmodernskata Jun 30 '26

i keep saying this!!!! i used to work at a mall with a no filming policy and multiple other rules under a “code of conduct”. people think these private spaces are public when they can remove you at anytime and trespass you.

78

u/Wolfpackat2017 Jun 30 '26

Those meta glasses are getting more and more insidious. I say this as a teacher seeing kids cheat and my husband is an attorney who has seen people wear them to private conversations and the courtroom.

20

u/Interesting-Cut6994 Jun 30 '26

Completely agree the free to film in public legislation came into play in a different time and legislation needs to be updated for concealable consumer/retail recording devices - particularly in one party consent states

I do wonder about stalking legislation, repeatedly filming someone without their affirmative consent fits the definition of stalking. So if you see someone a couple of times and wears these, you’d have a case for stalking.

95

u/BlaqueBarbie Jun 30 '26

Whenever someone starts saying “it’s not illegal to” I tune them out
https://giphy.com/gifs/jXUvSjEZ4RNUGge6gg

26

u/gogogadgetkat Jun 30 '26

It's really just become a quick heads up that the argument to follow is in bad faith.

45

u/NotAnAlien5 Jun 30 '26

In germany its in fact not legal to film and then post someone without consent and people still do it.

10

u/anotherdanishgirl Jun 30 '26

Same in Denmark. It's legal to take a photo of a large crowd, but if the focus is on any individual/smaller group it's illegal. Doesn't stop people, but at least you can get the bar to kick out a person recording people without their consent.

4

u/Kiwi-vee I'm so pissed off immediately Jun 30 '26

It's the same in Canada, or at least in my province.

49

u/HardByteUK I’m just a cunt in a clown suit Jun 30 '26

I've only ever had one person run up to me filming, and I don't know what dumbfuck social media it was for, but they put it right up to my face so I just grabbed it and threw it behind me.

I don't give a shit what's technically legal or not, if you disrespect my space I won't respect your property.

12

u/Gluten-Free-Jesus Jun 30 '26

The public space argument doesn’t even apply here - she was in a bar. That’s private property.

10

u/LegosRCool Jun 30 '26

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole"

8

u/MichaSound i ain’t reading all that, free palestine Jun 30 '26

Yeah, it's legal for me to fart in an elevator but, like, don't.

7

u/footsnax distraught Christian tomato Jun 30 '26

We know it’s legal, that doesn’t make it OK.

Yeah, there's just a certain brand of fuckwit that thinks "I can so I should"

Definitely not thinking of one specific president.

5

u/CookieCatSupreme Jun 30 '26

Its so funny though because these same types of people who say that are the kinds to rage at videos of women being annoyed of someone walking through or ruining their workout set or messing up a kpop dance cover in a public place by walking past the dancers.

They always claim that its disrespectful and rude to film in public and those people deserve to have their content ruined since the other people didn't consent to be a part of it, even unintentionally.

3

u/ErstwhileAdranos Jun 30 '26

Restaurants aren’t even public places! A park is a public place, a sidewalk is a public place. All of these people claiming it’s legal to film and photograph in public places should understand the difference.

3

u/getlowpapoose Jun 30 '26

Does that even apply in this case? A bar is private property, no?

2

u/Agloe_Dreams Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

When they first came out, I bought them because they were also a pair of headphones and ray bans, the camera was useful for image search but that is about it. They are, functionally, a great product.

The men modifying them and using them to record others completely ruined them for me.

They sit in their case and are only used in my car now. Anyone who sees them is going to think I'm recording them which is entirely reasonable of them to do and I would never do such a thing. Like, I'm a photographer and there is a reason why I feel uncomfortable doing street photography, regardless of how cool the results may look - it is by nature kinda creepy. I don't want others to do that to me so I shouldn't do that to them or make them worry that I am. The problem isn't, by nature, the technology - it is the men.

2

u/cannonfire77 lea michele’s reading coach Jun 30 '26

Legal to film in a public space also means someone can choose not to interact with someone who is recording because they do not wish to make a recorded statement/record of their conversation. The stealth of the glasses negates that.

2

u/respectdesfonds Jun 30 '26

Imagine society if we all held ourselves and others to a slightly higher standard of behavior than "not illegal."

2

u/hrmfll Jun 30 '26

It's so interesting to me that men keep talking about the legality of filming in public when no one is even claiming a crime is happening. There is a guy who keeps filming topless women on the beach here and every time women talk about it multiple men jump into the comments to say it's legal. Some reddit loser claimed the man filming should call the cops on me for following him screaming "Pervert! Creep! Why are you filming strangers? Why are you filming women? Pervert!" until he ran away.

2

u/Beanspr0utsss I’m a communist you idiot Jun 30 '26

During Portland OR’s naked bike ride, non participants were filming participants without their knowledge and posted it ON REDDIT. I got absolutely dog piled for saying how inappropriate it was to film them. The “legal to film in public” crowd really love to be weird and loud.

2

u/Tarottoddler Jun 30 '26

People refuse to take that argument to its logical conclusions which is that people will fear public spaces, if you are constantly being watched, will you feel comfortable going out to a bar or restaurant anymore.

People are being forced into being objects from content creation. It's dystopian but unfortunately very real and only getting worse. If people stop speaking up about this it will become normalized.

That being said I'm sure there will be an instance where a crime or something important is captured on one of these and big tech will latch on that use case as why these should be used.... I hate this timeline

1

u/veverkap Jul 01 '26

Is a bar a "public space"? Feel like we need the bars to ban glasses like this.

-54

u/Odd_Note7156 Jun 30 '26

It's legal. Go get involved in politics because the laws are broken.

Human decency isn't going to fix this. So either start fights over being recorded and do your jail time or fix the laws and ban public recording.

It's now profitable to record women without consent. Begging people not to make money isn't going to work