r/BrandNewSentence • u/Sebastianlim • 19h ago

"Women are being advised to play copyrighted Disney music when they spot men secretly recording them with Meta glasses."

Post image
18.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

78

u/Fallenjace 18h ago

It is not illegal to film someone on the street. That being said, ewww. They should legally have a little red blinking light.

76

u/Fallenjace 18h ago

To the person who deleted their comment saying:

In the US, depending on where you live and what you intend or the. do with that footage it absolutely can be

That is incorrect. It is generally legal to film people in any public spaces - such as streets, sidewalks, and parks where individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No matter the intention, with or without your permission. But what do I know, I only worked in a law firm for a decade. Yep, me and the Supreme court, what do we know?

9

u/DistractionCitron 17h ago

Yes, you can film people in public–as long as it isn't under their clothes–and put it anywhere you'd like. You just can't use the footage in a courtcase without two-party consent in most states. Also, the Instagram CEO himself said that he thinks the way people are using Meta Glasses in public is creepy and he told his staff to delete any videos that people in them report.

24

u/cansofgrease 16h ago

You just can't use the footage in a courtcase without two-party consent in most states.

Sorry but what are you talking about? By that logic any CCTV, bodycam, or cell phone evidence would be thrown out.

2

u/rexatron_games 14h ago

I think the missing key here is recording without the other person’s knowledge. CCTVs, body cams, and cell phones are generally quite obvious and in public places. Hidden cameras or recording devices, in a lot of states, need a warrant to be admissible as evidence.

HOWEVER: recording a private conversation (even in public), is federally illegal.

If someone with Meta glasses approaches, tell them that you’re having a private conversation, start talking with your friends about literally anything, and the person recording is now breaking federal law. You can call the police and report them for eavesdropping.

4

u/Elgydiumm 12h ago

Isn't recording your own private conversation fully legal though even in the US?

2

u/Neuchacho 6h ago edited 5h ago

Not everywhere, no. 12 States require all parties to agree to be recorded in private conversations before a recording can legally happen. There are also some states that have all-party consent for phone conversations and one-party consent for in-person conversations and vice versa. Thirdparty-eavesdropping (recording conversations you are not a party of) is illegal in all States.

The caveat with in-person usually is there needs to be an "expectation of privacy" so recording out in a public space doesn't usually apply and announcing privacy would not be enough, you'd need to be within a private space.

1

u/Elgydiumm 5h ago

Wild considering it's fully legal in my pewny European country and we don't have as strong of personal rights in general.

2

u/lofatiger 12h ago

What about a CCTV that someone didn’t know was there?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

Security CCTVs frequently do not record audio for that exact reason.

2

u/Elloitsmeurbrother 11h ago

This sounds about as legit as "they cannot arrest a husband and wife for the same crime"

I'm not arguing with you... I'm just saying it sounds like that

1

u/Burt_Rhinestone 9h ago

Eavesdropping via recording device is illegal. You can record your own conversations without issue.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

Not everywhere, unless you have the consent of all parties to the conversation.

2

u/MatterofDoge 7h ago

HOWEVER: recording a private conversation (even in public),

see this is where tik tok lawyering is going to bite you, because there is no such thing as private in public, those are contradictory qualifiers that are mutually exclusive lol. If you're out in a public space having a conversation where someone has the ability to hear you, they simply can record you. There's countless examples of criminal trials where people were caught because someone overheard them talking about crimes they committed or whatever, and no defense attorney has ever been successful in saying "but your honor they thought they were having a private conversation in that park when they were talking about their trunk with all the drugs in it in front of that person who recorded it" lol.

The federal laws your referring to are specifically about recording people in places where they can reasonably expect privacy, or intercepting transmissions or wire tapping etc, but absolutely do not include public places

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

there is no such thing as private in public, those are contradictory qualifiers that are mutually exclusive lol

IAA(actual)L, so I'm going to push back on this a bit. You absolutely can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Let's say I'm having a conversation with my criminal associate, and we walk off together to a secluded corner of the public park where no one is around to have a whispered conversation. If, unbeknownst to us, you had previously implanted a recording device into the tree, because you know people sometimes have juicy conversations in this area, you may be acting in violation of the law, even though we are in a "public place".

0

u/Burt_Rhinestone 9h ago

Eh… it’s illegal to surreptitiously record someone else’s conversation, but you can secretly record a conversation in which you’re involved.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

That depends on the state. Some states require consent from all parties.

1

u/Burt_Rhinestone 5h ago

Right. The comment I responded to said it was federally illegal.

16

u/Bladesnake_______ 16h ago

You think footage needs two party consent to be used in court? Like if a guy robs a bank they cant use the camera footage without his consent? Do you realize how insanely wrong that is?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

When the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy (and in the states where all-party consent is needed), you could not use the footage.

However, someone robbing a bank does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their shouted commands, and so the law does not apply.

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 3h ago

You almost never have a reasonable expectation to privacy outside your home and anywhere you would change clothes like a locker room, dressing room, or bathroom

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 3h ago

You speaking of a generalized expectation of privacy, but if I have a personal conversation with someone in a public park, in hushed tones, in a secluded area, I have a reasonable expectation that the conversation will not be recorded by an unseen third-party.

I can assure you that neither I nor any other attorney think these laws only apply when you're in your home or a bathroom. In fact, if I'm talking loudly in a public restroom, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy as to that conversation.

Again, what is at issue here are the audio recordings, which have their own very specific statutes distinct from visual recordings.

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 1h ago

Youre just making shit up. Youre bending definitions so you can say you are right. This is a stupid conversation

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 1h ago

I'm a lawyer. I'm discussing the law. You may be out of your element.

12

u/Visual-Scallion1535 16h ago

No, two party consent states are about recording private conversations in private spaces

And that doesnt just mean privately owned, that means areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy

1

u/rexatron_games 14h ago

There is a distinction between conversations you are a party to and ones you are not.

Recording private conversations you are a party to requires 2-party consent in several states, but is legal in most.

Recording private conversations you are not a party to (even those held in public spaces) is eavesdropping and is federally illegal.

2

u/Visual-Scallion1535 7h ago

No, not if they are in public and have no expectation of privacy

1

u/rexatron_games 3h ago

18 U.S. Code § 2511 covers eavesdropping via electronic recording.

I can’t find anywhere that it specifies that this protection is lost once you enter a public space, in spite of the many many exceptions. Being in public does not remove protections for private conversations being secretly recorded.

If I’m wrong, that’s fine.

1

u/Visual-Scallion1535 2h ago

“(2)“oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation”

The definitions section defines an “oral communication” as oral communication where you have an expectation of privacy

10

u/takumidesh 16h ago

the vast majority of states (38) are single party consent.

3

u/Artinz7 15h ago

People not realizing this is another example of California defaultism because of the abundance of crime media from Hollywood.

6

u/rhino369 16h ago

And even two party states require it to be otherwise private. Loud public conduct is essentially zero party consent. 

2

u/GARlactic 16h ago

Honestly I trust you more than the supreme court these days.

3

u/whyhellomlady 16h ago

Unfortunately that is the case, you’ve pretty much hit it right on the money. Curious though, you say you’ve worked in a law firm for a decade. Are you a licensed attorney? Or did you just accumulate all that info from the attorneys you support?

1

u/SingularityCentral 17h ago

Reasonable expectation of privacy is typically applied to the 4th amendment protections against government action. It is very true that if you just take pictures/video of people in public and monetize those images or otherwise publicize them you could be subject to a civil suit for misapropriation of likeness or for false light/defamation if it is unflattering, embarrassing, or otherwise humiliating images.

It is also true that capturing someone's communications with an electronic device can be a crime in many states even if it occurs in public.

2

u/Cross_22 15h ago

"It is very true that if you just take pictures/video of people in public and monetize those images or otherwise publicize them you could be subject to a civil suit for misapropriation of likeness "

There's a landmark case about this: Nussenzweig v. diCorcia

Basically: monetize away.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago edited 5h ago

Important to note, this was a case based on New York law. You would not necessarily get the same outcome elsewhere under different laws, especially since a statute of limitations was relevant in this case, and the use was artistic in nature.

-7

u/Happytrees1725 17h ago

"I only worked in a law firm for a decade." You're giving off "I'm a nurse so here's my medical advice" . You're not a lawyer.

3

u/thedon572 17h ago

What are you?

-4

u/Happytrees1725 17h ago

Not a lawyer so I'm not giving legal advice.

7

u/Appropriate_Tap1761 17h ago

even if they aren't a lawyer the advice is objectively correct and trivial to prove by looking for what actual lawyers have said

9

u/Thelastknownking 17h ago

Unlike comprehensive medical knowledge, the law is easily found online, written plainly. It's not everyone else's fault you can't be bothered to read any of it.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

I'm a lawyer, so I suppose my view here will probably be seen with bias, but even after practicing for almost 30 years, I would not trust my interpretation of a statute in a jurisdiction in which I did not practice.

The law is as "easily" found online as medical knowledge is. There is plenty of incorrect information about the law, and although it may seem straightforward to just open up a statute and read it, it's very easy when you don't know the jurisdiction to miss the fact that several other laws from several other chapters may also apply. Unless you know to look for them, you'll never know.

Add to that, there's a wealth of law that does not exist neatly in statutory sections, not to mention that municipal codes often use copyrighted uniform laws that you can either pay for, or go down to the planning office to use their printed copy.

The law should be simple and accessible to everyone. So should plumbing. But neither are, and even if you can get to 95% accurate with manuals and guidebooks, it's that 5% that hurts you.

-4

u/SingularityCentral 17h ago

That is misleading. Many civil claims exist in common law and are not written explicitly into statute. And most of the very important nuance in the law is contained in common law/case law. Be wary of thinking you know what the law is because you read a statute or two.

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 5h ago

I'm a lawyer; I'll co-sign what they said. It was pretty general and noncontroversial.

-3

u/DogPlane3425 17h ago

Given recent Supreme Court rulings they don't know much!

11

u/SeedFoundation 17h ago

I wonder if they will do the same thing like in Japan where you can't take a photo without a shutter sound. Of course there are ways to get around it but it's still a step in the right direction rather than ban it outright. Requiring a red light to be visible is certainly a very interesting idea.

5

u/mjac1090 17h ago

Requiring a red light to be visible is certainly a very interesting idea.

Literally already a thing for meta glasses. People were getting around that by paying people (I believe it used to be they would drill into the light but I read they updated the glasses so that the camera not seeing the light turns it off. I'm guessing there's so new mod now)

4

u/SeedFoundation 16h ago

I am not talking about company standards but required by law.

3

u/bs000 14h ago

The shutter sound isn't required by law in Japan either. It was just something all the major phone brands agreed to do voluntarily when cellphone cameras were starting to get popular. It was a preemptive measure out of fear that the government would outright ban cellphone cameras if they didn't do something to soothe public fears about privacy.

1

u/SeedFoundation 14h ago

Yup, the privacy laws would inevitably force the companies to make the change. They are really strict when it comes to any sort of regulation and this was their way of getting ahead of the curve because having a law enacted because of their product would give them a bad image. It's not officially a law in Japan but if you see past the smoke and mirrors it's pretty evident that it was very close to becoming one.

1

u/Bladesnake_______ 16h ago

Okay but how do you do a shutter sound for a video and why wouldnt your phone also require a red rec light?

13

u/7thFleetTraveller 16h ago

It is not illegal to film someone on the street.

Over here in Germany, it is. You can't just film people without their consent, that's against our personality rights. But still, I don't think such a device would be forbidden only because you "could" potentially do something illegal with it. There are a lot of legal uses for them which are no problem. I agree though, some kind of light signal to show a camera is filming, might be a good solution.

12

u/bcocoloco 16h ago

It’s a lot more nuanced than that. Otherwise every tourist would be breaking the law by taking pictures.

13

u/7thFleetTraveller 16h ago

This is defined by the law, too. When you take pictures of sights, and there are people randomly in the background, taking the picture is legal. You're not directly pointing the camera at their faces and focusing them, they are random background. But, if you want to upload the picture online where it can be seen in public, then you have to blur out the faces.

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

So wearing the glasses and filming everything is legal there. Because you're not specifically pointing the glasses at a person

2

u/Visual-Scallion1535 16h ago

Thats insane tbh

how does a journalist do their job?

13

u/7thFleetTraveller 15h ago

What's so insane about having a right on your own picture? Journalists have to ask for consent of the people they are filming, too, of course. At least when it comes to regular (private) people. If they film a situation and people don't consent, their faces get blurred. Same as with full names.

It's a different situation if someone is a person of public interest, a celebrity or politician etc. Those have already agreed to public attention, filming etc., as long as they are at a public place and not on their private property.

5

u/mqee 13h ago

For Americans, every right they don't have is insane.

Privacy rights? Insane.

Healthcare rights? Insane.

0

u/Visual-Scallion1535 7h ago

Apperently the concept of “free speech” is insane for Europeans

2

u/MornwindShoma 7h ago

"Free speech" doesn't protect you from other people's rights.

0

u/Visual-Scallion1535 7h ago

no but it does give me broad discretion to post about things I observe and capture happening in public

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Visual-Scallion1535 15h ago

Im just not sure I believe the journalist had all these people sign a release tbh

6

u/RaspberryLanky7905 15h ago

release is probably included in the ticket purchase.

1

u/Visual-Scallion1535 15h ago

Okay heres a photo from an article covering a public parade

7

u/Cross_22 15h ago

All your questions could be easily answered with a quick google search "public photography laws in germany"

3

u/Putrid-Poet 14h ago

From what I understand, the gist of the law is that if you focus on an individual, you are not allowed to post the photo/video online without their consent. But if you are taking a photo of a crowd or if you are taking a photo of a person/place of public interest and some people happen to be in your photo, you are allowed to post the photo. Other thing to note is that taking a photo or video is almost always legal in public places, the law restricts online publication.

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

This is not a photo of any individual it's a photo of a crowd. Therefore legal. Not that hard mate

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Pwacname 11h ago

I think they missed the exception that if a person just happens to be in the background and isn’t the focus of the picture, it’s fine. I don’t know where the “you have to blur them” comes from, because I have never in my life here either heard or seen that. 

1

u/splitcroof92 3h ago

Nothing insane about it.

It's just an anti harassment law

1

u/Cautious-Start-1043 11h ago

Exactly. At Oktoberfest everyone are criminals…

1

u/RedditJumpedTheShart 16h ago

Then how do the live cameras in public areas exist? I can easily find them online and easily identify people in them.

1

u/7thFleetTraveller 15h ago

There are specific laws for things the government and authorities are allowed to do. Which is indeed a problem in regard to data security and personality rights, yes.

1

u/sliver013 14h ago

I'd rather we the people have that right than our government. 

2

u/Pwacname 11h ago

If it helps, government security cameras ime are extremely limited and will be extremely clearly signalled. My favourite was a public pool I visited on a holiday, where they had signs all over, because they had a security camera. Well, they had a security camera checking only the entry area, which was shut off except for (hours listed, which were the hours it was closed, with the addition that those were the hours where it was closed). 

So basically it was filming nothing but the parking lot/front doors of a public pool at night, because of repeated past vandalism, and then there was additional info on how long the data was saved, where, who’s the privacy person, etc etc. that is the amount of surveillance I can honestly tolerate in public. 

1

u/Ok-Soil997 11h ago

When filming in public or even private, people have to be informed that they are being filmed in this area. You find signs like that on every single entry to a store, for example.

1

u/MornwindShoma 7h ago

There are literal signs telling you you're being recorded in both public and private places.

2

u/NekoLu 17h ago

Don't they already have a light? Not red though. With different detection methods of the light being removed or covered

4

u/Prestigious_Emu144 17h ago

They do have a little light, but I’ve seen a video of someone removing it successfully.

2

u/NekoLu 17h ago

Tbh with enough persistence and ingenuity any indicator can be removed

2

u/Prestigious_Emu144 17h ago

Specifically I saw a video of someone going to an expert to get it removed successfully so it definitely isn’t easy (either that or no one is brave enough to post a step-by-step tutorial).

0

u/Brasolis 15h ago

I have created this new invention that can completely disable Meta glasses recording indicators. It's called tape, it comes in different colours and opacity!

1

u/AnRealDinosaur 14h ago

Meta glasses stop working if you block the light.

1

u/Kind-Feeling2490 16h ago

I just watched a YouTube video  on these things and they were able to get removed in 10 minutes for a $100 

1

u/Hefty-Weekend8499 16h ago

If you tamper or cover the light not you can’t record. They fixed it

2

u/SingularityCentral 17h ago edited 17h ago

It can be illegal (in a civil sense) depending on jursidiction and what you use that image for. If it isn't used by the press (news) and it is monetized you could be subject to a civil suit for misappropriation of likeness. Why do you think TV shows and movies get waivers from people?

The problem we have is despite Americans being known as litigious, not enough sue for this issue. The damages tend to be small and not worth the time.

Additionally, if you filming captures the communications of other people even conversation, it can also be illegal and even subject to criminal penalties. For example, if you were to sit on a park bench and record people a few feet away while discussing something among themselves, you could be committing a misdemeanor depending on the state you are in.

1

u/pinkfootthegoose 16h ago

All cameras on public streets should have blinking red lights including those put up by private businesses and governments outside in public areas. yes security cameras too.

1

u/Kinghero890 14h ago

people are paying to have the red light removed. its apparently like 50 for a hobbyist to do it.

1

u/TsunamiCatCakes 11h ago

expecting to be PRIVATE in a PUBLIC setting is a first world problem for real

1

u/ShawnyMcKnight 10h ago

It does. It has a bright light you can’t disable.

1

u/Squirty42069 14m ago

The light can be disabled in like 15 minutes by hobbyists. People are getting paid to do it.