376

Dilara was on her lunch break in the London store where she works when a tall man walked up to her and said: "I swear red hair means you've just been heartbroken."

The man continued the conversation as they both got in a lift, and he asked Dilara for her phone number.

What Dilara did not realise was that the man was secretly filming her on his smart glasses - which look like normal eyewear but have a tiny camera which can record video.

The footage was then posted to TikTok, where it received 1.3m views. "I just wanted to cry," Dilara, 21, told the BBC.

The man who filmed her, it turned out, had posted dozens of secretly filmed videos to TikTok, giving men tips on how to approach women.

Dilara also found out that her phone number was visible in the video. She then faced a wave of messages and calls.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 125 points 1 month ago

Fuck TikTok. And fuck smart glasses. What the fuck is wrong with people who would even design glasses with a hidden camera?

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago

Fuck the assholes who would do this.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Absolutely. I cannot believe such a creepy product would be made to begin with though.

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

Glassholes are making a comeback, fuck.

[-] cRazi_man@europe.pub 21 points 1 month ago

They're desperate to get data about human activity. They wanted data about what people do online and they've got all of that. Now they need to move into the human world as much as possible. It used to be just for selling to advertisers, but now they also need to feed it into AI.

They already try to force these into every area of our lives..... all phone data, all online content, dating apps, phone keyboards, browser fingerprinting, internet connected fridges, cars, door bells, home cameras, etc etc. Now they will try to find new and novel ways to put more data collection devices (camera, mic, GPS, gryo and movement trackers, any physical parameter they can think of, etc etc) into more insane devices.

They will push "smart" clothes, wearable AI devices, furniture, toilet, etc etc. They will say these are absolutely essential and add value to our lives. People will eat this up immediately and fall over themselves to incorporate these into their lives and celebrate how amazing this is.

It started with the initial days of Facebook when I didn't want to be on Facebook, but people I know would still upload my pictures and tag them with my name. They need more and more ways to get information on people not in their ecosystem. This shit will only get more and more invasive.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

And then they'll call anyone who thinks "smart" devices are stupid a luddite...

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago

Billionaires are the mistake.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Both can be solved with a daneaxe.

[-] piranhaconda@mander.xyz 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They're being built into earbuds and headphones now too. Let me see if I can find links to the products again, saw them while browsing articles about CES

Edit: https://www.soundguys.com/razer-project-motoko-ai-headphones-150707/

The headphones were real, the earbuds were just a concept image though

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Jesus. Black Mirror is all coming true.

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

Smart glasses and hidden cameras are two different products.

That being said, anyone can easily film you in public because anyone just assumes you're just holding your phone up for something else.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

I consider it hidden if it's designed to look like a normal pair of glasses which the post states is the case.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, it is a hidden camera in a pair of glasses, not smart glasses.

They were pointing out the difference. It would be like someone confusing a camera for a smartphone.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

It would be like someone confusing a camera for a smartphone.

Not really. For the purposes of this conversation that doesn't matter at all. The only things that matter here would be can the glasses film and can anyone tell that at a glance? I don't care if the glasses can also do Google searches or some shit. That doesn't necessarily violate my privacy. What violates my privacy is someone filming, without me even having a clue they might be.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Not really. For the purposes of this conversation that doesn’t matter at all.

It does, because the statement that people are taking issue with:

Smart glasses and hidden cameras are two different products.

Is objectively correct and that was the only point they were trying to make. They were not claiming that it makes filming okay or that hidden cameras are not a problem.

The people are not responding to the actual words written by the person, they're replying the the subtext that they feel was implied.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Me: makes point

Online weirdo: akshually, you're wrong. Unrelated irrelevant details matter

You: yeah, ya idiot! It totally matters cuz we said so!

Edit: checks out completely that your only post on this platform is to claim you weren't being transphobic and making a big stink about it

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

If you get so triggered when people point out that you're wrong, maybe you should spend more time reading a book and less time trying to be insulting.

Your comments read like you're an angsty teenager who is incapable of having a conversation like an adult.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

Yours read like a libertarian from the early 2000s who is definitely okay with some heinous shit but won't own up to it. Save your projecty reading recommendations for yourself.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago
[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

More projection. Seems I nailed it. Toxicly masculine insult and everything just to confirm.

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol -1 points 1 month ago

In the US, that does not legally violate your privacy if you are in public.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You get that there is a difference in "I can tell I'm being filmed" and not, right? You get that law is behind technology sometimes, right? Not sure why there's an argument here.

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 4 weeks ago

You're almost always being filmed in public in many places. The courts say it doesn't matter whether or not you realize it, in the US.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -2 points 4 weeks ago

So no, you don't realize either point. Cool, you're basically an intellectual brick.

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The law is always behind technology. There's no gotcha here. I was just talking about the standard the law has to pass to last, under current interpretation. Lots of laws get passed and then struck down as not meeting the standard of constitutional muster. Just because someone wants to ban something doesn't mean the law will stand. Thanks for the degredation though.

[-] Railing5132@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

There are many states that have 2-party consent laws regarding being recorded. In my jurisdiction, what the glasshole did might have been illegal. (I'm not a lawyer or judge)

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 2 points 4 weeks ago

Two party consent laws only apply in situations where they would have an expectation of privacy, as in not in public. Much of the whole first amendment auditing community is focused on educating people about this. State laws can't trump constitutional precedent.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

anyone can easily film you in public because anyone just assumes you're just holding your phone up for something else.

Nope. If someone is doing that, I can easily notice it and know it's a possibility and move/turn away. Just because I can judge that as probably not happening doesn't mean a phone being held is equivalent to a human literally just wearing glasses with their head turned my way.

Are you really advocating for the position that I should give up the fight and just accept being filmed at all times in public?

[-] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 2 points 1 month ago

If you're in the US, the supreme court has said repeatedly we have no expectation of privacy in public. Anyone can operate as the press and the first amendment locks in their right specifically to film in publicly accessible places, and also to record government employees in the course of their duties based on current constitutioal law. It's good for filming cops from a short distance away, but if you physically get in their way they can arrest you. And resisting detainment or arrest can apparently get you shot.

The flip side is yeah anyone can be recording you at any time in public. We can make laws to restrict that but the burden to pass constitutional scrutiny is high. Because of that, I'm not allowed to film into your home from outside, that was deemed an acceptable exception. If I could get the restrictions I'd like to see, it would be dismantling the surveillance state they've put up with Flock cameras etc. The government isn't allowed to surveil citizens without a court order, so they simply contracted it out to private companies.

[-] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

just accept being filmed at all times in public?

Funny you say that. There was a YouTube channel (that also spawned those NPC meme videos) that randomly went up to people and started recording them without context/saying anything. The idea was to bring attention to the fact that you're being recorded in public spaces constantly, by bazillion cameras around

Do something interesting and you might find yourself online by one of those cameras

[-] 3abas@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Nope. If someone is doing that, I can easily notice it and know it's a possibility and move/turn away. Just because I can judge that as probably not happening doesn't mean a phone being held is equivalent to a human literally just wearing glasses with their head turned my way.

Agreed.

Are you really advocating for the position that I should give up the fight and just accept being filmed at all times in public?

Assuming you're in the US, you have no expectations of privacy in public, and it's perfectly legal to film you in public. You do have to accept that, yes.

I'm sure a case can be made for someone approaching you and getting you to interact while filming secretly, and I hope she can sue him for damages. But simply being recorded in public is not something you can do anything about.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I am well aware of that supreme court decision. If hidden cameras mounted in glasses were a thing then, I highly doubt that ruling could've ever happened. Thanks for telling me what I have to accept though. Totally helpful and kind thing to do. Thanks also for the weird condescension. Exactly what the world needs right now.

[-] 3abas@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

I wasn't condescending at all, and it didn't seem you were aware, I was trying to be informative. What a weird response, honestly.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

FYI since you pretend not to know: "you do have to accept [thing that didn't exist at the time a ruling was made]" would read as being a smartass to most people

[-] 3abas@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago

Gotcha, I didn't realize it came off like that.

Again, was trying to be informative, because not accepting it implied not being aware, and we all have to accept it.. or revolt and rewrite the rules...

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
376 points (99.7% liked)

World News

54120 readers
2982 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS