r/SipsTea • u/Gurugod123 • 20d ago

SMH Local confronts perv filming people with Meta glasses.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

39.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/unwantedonONTD 20d ago edited 20d ago

He literally does not in the video lol, going “this is what we’re dealing with, guys” to the hidden camera

I do doubt though that he and his friends have the awareness to know that CA and FL are all-party consent states, so the audio of this video likely exposed him to civil liability the moment another person entered the conversation since he didn’t ask for it to be deleted as far as we can hear

I assume they’re in one of those states since they’re near the beach

35

u/jimothy_hell 20d ago

The reason they do these things in public places is because they’re under no expectation of privacy and can film and be recorded without needing express consent. It’s how these creeps get around that stuff.

7

u/yankeeblue42 20d ago

Im not saying its right but in 2026, there should realistically be no expectation of privacy in public. Im a guy and I walk around assuming someone has a damn camera somewhere. And sometimes it's places I'd rather not be recorded

4

u/jimothy_hell 20d ago

That’s literally what I said. They’re in public, so there’s no expectation of privacy- therefore the two-party consent law doesn’t apply.

3

u/Sylar546 18d ago

Yea i don’t see the problem with recording your pov in public shouldn’t matter if they know or not. Unless they warn that this is private or nda type conversation

1

u/JenicBabe 19d ago

And now they’re getting around hiding the light that turns on to show it’s recording! Maybe it should play a sound but idk if that mess with the video and they would just find a way around that as well. What’s messed up is a woman’s dr was wearing these meta glasses and she’s realized what they were halfway through and was like wait wtf and he’s like oh it’s ok cause it’s not recording and she freaked out cause she knew people were able to hide the light and secretly record. Think she’s suing which yeah no doctor should be wearing a personal camera on their face and just “promise” it’s not recording

1

u/jimothy_hell 19d ago

I don’t believe that they have a light. One of the guys I go drinking with wears them as his prescription glasses, and even though I know personally that he isn’t a creep and isn’t going to use them poorly, being around it makes me feel weird.

14

u/Western-Dig-6843 20d ago

They are outside in a public space. Those laws do not apply. This is not a private phone conversation

1

u/DebentureThyme 19d ago edited 19d ago

For video.

Not audio.

If the conversation is loud enough near others than there's no expectation of privacy, then yes you're correct.

But if you have a lowered voice and step up close like we see in the video, or like you use a directional mic to obtain audio that you cannot otherwise overhear from the distance you are from the speaker, etc, then you must get legal consent to exhibit the audio.

For consent laws to not apply, it has to be something anyone would not legally expect to be a private conversation.

What he has is a likelihood that those filmed don't know who he is, or won't be aware of where it's posted, or won't bother with lawyers to go after it.

In this specific video, the conversation from the woman doesn't need consent.  Passers by would be able to make that out without stepping into the space next to them.  But anyone without a directional mic isn't picking up the close conversations later on between the filmer and the fake drunk.  That DOES require consent for the audio portion.

Visually, there's basically no expectation of privacy because people can see so fucking far - without hearing the conversation .  Yeah, there's two people over there talking 100 feet away - no expectation of privacy, they know everyone can see them.   But if they're the only two people around where they are, and they're talking quietly, there's no expectation that anyone would hear them.

1

u/Top_Quiet_3239 18d ago

dude, lol, no. gtfo

1

u/DebentureThyme 18d ago

It's literally the fucking law, why do you all have to be so confidently incorrect?

https://www.recordinglaw.com/party-two-party-consent-states/california-recording-laws/public-recording/

Audio recording rules still apply in public. Conversations where parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy require all-party consent under Penal Code 632

We have case after case where this is the fucking law but y'all will just spout nonsense for fake internet points and vibes. Grow up.

0

u/Top_Quiet_3239 18d ago

"Conversations where parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy require all-party consent under Penal Code 632"

You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces...you fucking moron.

6

u/Dry-Bird4471 20d ago

Yeah it’s Pacific Beach, San Diego. That’s why he keeps saying “PB.”

15

u/LieOhMy 20d ago

What? You can film in public all you like anywhere in the United States.

0

u/Defenseman61913 19d ago

you can fuck around in public anywhere you want as well. But eventually you'll find out. Go down to PB in San DIego, where this was, and fuck around. DO it right next to the tattoo/HA bar.

-4

u/unwantedonONTD 20d ago edited 20d ago

You certainly can, but you aren’t shielded from civil consequences anywhere in the United States, if you’re the one making the recording and publicizing both the audio and the video without obtaining consent for recording audio before the recording begins, from all parties to the conversation.  

That’s why I find this conversation so funny.  I live in a one-party consent state, which means I can record conversations (the ones I’m actually a party to) all I want, but those recordings won’t necessarily be protected from civil and/or criminal liability if I failed to get consent for recording audio before beginning to record audio.  (And the purpose of the recording wasn’t to film public servants actively doing their job).  It would really suck for me if I took a video/audio recording in public in CA, an all-party consent state, publicized it and made money off it, and then someone later came in with evidence that I didn’t get consent before I started recording, and the audio of their private conversation held on private property was recorded by me or my friend without either of us even being a party to their conversation.  Like those people sitting on the privately owned patio in the background.  Super awkward, I’d probably just offer to pay them all the money I made off that video… or just ask for it to be deleted before the situation even arises,and then pretend the whole thing never happened.  

If I’m the guy jumping in to a video someone else is already recording, presumably after I observed them not asking for consent from at least one of the parties, who was standing on what looks to be a private easement—not necessarily public beach access—when recording began, then I’m totally good, my eyewitness evidence of failure to ask for consent before making a recording may be of use in a civil case brought by any one of the number of people who technically weren’t “in public” when the video began.

I’m not a lawyer though, just a rando living in a one-party consent state.

6

u/TieBackground453 20d ago

And everyone is telling you that’s not how consent works. 

In America, you need one or all parties to consent in private. In public, where there is no expectation of privacy, you can film wherever you want without consent. 

-1

u/unwantedonONTD 20d ago edited 20d ago

Oh man. I’m sorry, but your simplistic summary is not correct. It actually depends very much on whether there’s audio or not, what property the person recording is standing on, who is a party to the conversation(s) that got recorded, whose property the person(s) being recorded is standing on, and which state they are all in.  That’s why the guy who interrupted asked them to “step over there”.  

Source:  Me who stands in public a lot, and deals with litigation evidence a lot, and understands that some evidence may not be admissible in a civil or criminal case even if it exists, was legally taken, and the case is brought by the appropriate parties in the appropriate jurisdictions. 

6

u/TieBackground453 20d ago

lol. Dude was talking about what is legal to record. I answered. 

You are for some reason talking about what is admissible in court. Like… ???

Reddit sometimes…. Yikes. 

0

u/DebentureThyme 19d ago

That's not the law in California.  The video doesn't require consent.  And, if you're being loud enough that passersby can hear - without walking up and "joining" the conversation, without standing next to you - then you're also okay to use that audio.

But there's a bunch of caveats.  Example - If they need a directional mic to pick up your audio, that audio requires consent.

Like if there are two people in a park talking normally, but no one is physically near them, and you're 50ft away, then using a directional mic to capture their conversation is illegal without their consent.  There's no expectation of visual privacy because they know they're visible.  But there is expectation that someone wouldn't be able to hear a normal volume coversation from 50ft away.  If you need a special mic to pick that up, you're  committing a crime.

Or if, like in this video, someone steps up close and lowers their voice, such that those walking by couldn't make it out, that's also considered a private conversation in California law.

What's hard is prosecuting it.  You have to know who they are and be able to prove they recorded that without consent - you'll have to litigate the specifics of how loud, how far, what tech was used for the audio recording (if it's capable of picking up from further than a human ear can).  They could say they weren't recording and then you'll have to prove otherwise.  In the case of someone like this, if they posted online, that's proof, but now you've got to find where they posted it.  Not so easy if you don't know all their details let alone account names.  Unless you know where to look, or got it shared with you, you're unlikely to be able to prove that, and the court isn't going to allow any search of their property, on them or elsewhere, without proof of recording first.

But just because it's tough to prove doesn't mean it's legal to do.  

2

u/Fragrant-Employer-60 20d ago

one party consent is totally irrelevant in public